Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

PRIVATE BUSINESS

[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]

TOR BAY HARBOUR (OXEN COVE AND COASTAL FOOTPATH, BRIXHAM) BILL

Considered; to be read the Third time.

Oral Answers to Questions — DEFENCE

RAF Dishforth

Mr. Curry: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will give further details of the future military use of RAF Dishforth.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Armed Forces (Mr. Roger Freeman): Dishforth will become the base of an Army Air Corps helicopter regiment which is being formed to support the newly titled 24th Airmobile Brigade, which has its headquarters at nearby Catterick garrison.

Mr. Curry: Is my hon. Friend aware that Dishforth is a prime site near the A1, which is developing rapidly and being significantly improved? Does he realise that there are more than 150 houses and other extensive facilities on the site? Does he accept that it is important for the project to go ahead without delay? If it were to fall foul, there are many other uses for the site. Will the military get on with it, or get out?

Mr. Freeman: I can give my hon. Friend the assurance that he is seeking. The Army will get on with it, and we plan to have the first squadron of helicopters there by the summer of next year. I confirm that all the empty married quarters, and a good part of the barracks, will be used by the Army Air Corps.

Cruise Missiles

Mr. Norman Hogg: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what discussions he has had with the United States Defence Secretary about sea-launched cruise missiles.

The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. George Younger): Mr. Carlucci and I discuss a wide variety of defence and security matters. The details of our discussions are confidential.

Mr. Hogg: Is it not clear that the Secretary of State has sanctioned the use of Holy Loch for sea-launched cruise

missiles without the House being consulted? Is it not a fact that the occasional visits of these submarines will become frequent visits? Is that not very different from what the Secretary of State told the Defence Select Committee? Has not a major strategic defence change taken place? This is a serious matter that the House should discuss on a future occasion.

Mr. Younger: The hon. Gentleman is wrong. There has been no change in the practice or status of Holy Loch. The Government would be consulted by the United States' authorities if they wished to base a new class of nuclear weapon in the United Kingdom. United States' SSNs visit Holy Loch occasionally, but no decisions for any change of principle have been taken.

Mr. Bill Walker: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the advantage of bases on the west coast of Scotland is that they offer access to deep water so that submarines can come and go without potential enemies being able to track them down? It would be nonsense not to use them effectively and properly for the NATO deterrent.

Mr. Younger: I agree with my hon. Friend. The many military advantages of the bases on the west coast of Scotland have been recognised by all Governments, both Labour and Conservative, in the past.

Sir Antony Buck: Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is a good thing that United States' ships pay frequent visits to our ports? They increase the deterrent capability of NATO, and that should be so.

Mr. Younger: My hon. and learned Friend is correct. The United States is one of our principal allies in defending western Europe and this country, and visits by its ships are very welcome.

Dartmoor (Live Firing)

Mr. Steen: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will take steps to ensure that red flags do not fly on Dartmoor when live firing is not taking place.

Mr. Freeman: When live firing is not planned, no danger flags are flown. When firing is cancelled, for example due to bad weather, we aim to remove the danger signals as quickly as possible to permit maximum recreational use of the moor. We try to remove them in these circumstances by midday.

Mr. Steen: I thank my hon. Friend for his interest in this last great wilderness in Britain and for his courtesy and helpfulness to the conservationists, but is he aware that the 8 million people who visit the moor each year are deprived of using 70 per cent. of the high moor because of live firing, 52 weeks a year, Monday to Friday, other than in August? Will he try to persuade the Army to end its somewhat dog-in-the-manger attitude, which results in the flags flying for far longer than is necessary? Will he please do something to have them taken down when they are no longer needed?

Mr. Freeman: As I have said, the moor is used for Army training and for recreational purposes. If it would be helpful, I should be happy to meet my hon. Friend, together with representatives of interested bodies, to discuss the future of Dartmoor and to listen to their suggestions and representations.

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: Is my hon. Friend aware that those who have spent their lives in Devon, unlike my hon. Friend the Member for South Hams (Mr. Steen)—[HON. MEMBERS: "Withdraw."] No, it is a fact—are aware that the presence of all branches of Her Majesty's forces in Devon is part of Devon's history, livelihood and ethos, which is greatly appreciated by those—other than some, only a few—who have come there recently?

Mr. Freeman: I agree with my hon. Friend's sentiments. The Army has been using Dartmoor for training for over 100 years.

BAOR

Mr. Shersby: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what discussions he has had with the German Minister of Defence concerning improvements in peacetime support for British forces in Germany.

The Minister of State for the Armed Forces (Mr. Ian Stewart): My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has regular discussions with his German counterpart on a wide range of subjects of mutual interest.

Mr. Shersby: Is my hon. Friend aware that the foreign exchange cost of British forces in Germany is running at an annual rate of £1·2 billion? Does he accept that unless the Federal Republic is prepared to share part of the burden savings must be limited to good housekeeping? As the Government have reserved their position with a view to finding an alternative solution to the former offset arrangements, can my hon. Friend now say what solutions he proposes to solve this difficult problem?

Mr. Stewart: I know of my hon. Friend's interest in this and, in particular, of the part that he played in the evidence that was taken by the Public Accounts Committee on host nation support a month or two ago. Following that, we have set up, in the logistics division at the Ministry of Defence, a special section to look into all these questions, including the matter of foreign exchange and the other things that my hon. Friend has mentioned.

Mr. Duffy: Will the Minister confirm that the improvements for which Dr. Wörner will be looking on the part of British forces in Germany, both as Secretary-General elect and as the current German Defence Minister, include sustainability, stockages and spares, shortfalls in standing ground forces, reinforcement and counter-air, certainly not the urgent modernisation of short range nuclear forces, to which the Prime Minister attaches so much importance?

Mr. Stewart: Dr. Wörner appreciates as well as any Defence Minister in NATO the importance of both nuclear and conventional forces for the defence of the West. It is fortunate that NATO is getting the services of someone who has been such a distinguished Defence Minister in Germany. He certainly appreciates the importance of all those matters that the hon. Gentleman has raised. I should add that he made a point of choosing British forces in Germany for his last official visit before leaving his office and on that occasion said:
The British make a decisive contribution in Germany and without BAOR and RAF Germany the defence of our country would be unthinkable.
That is a great testimony from the German Defence Minister.

Mr. Wilkinson: Will my hon. Friend confirm that the Government will implement in full the recommendations of the National Audit Office on ways of reducing the support costs of British forces in Germany? Will the Government review the Brussels treaty commitment, as the United Kingdom plays a major part in the defence of the east Atlantic and Channel areas—that is, in NATO's reinforcement—and Britain's air power can be a vital determinant against armour on the central front?

Mr. Stewart: The points put forward in the National Audit Office report will be considered carefully by my Department, particularly by the new section that we have established. I have serious doubts about whether reducing the number of dependants would be the right thing to do. It seems to me that having a substantial number of unaccompanied postings to Germany would be against the interests of the armed forces and their families and would, over time, decrease the effectiveness of those forces.

Mr. Sean Hughes: If the Government are so aware of conventional needs, does the Minister share the view of Sir Martin Farndale, who, in January this year, identified a long list of deficiencies, including tanks, and the need for more and better artillery, helicopters and armoured engineer support as well as other equipment?

Mr. Stewart: Any good commander-in-chief—General Farndale was certainly that—can identify improvements that he would like made in the equipment and back-up of the forces. All those matters are of concern to this country and our allies in western Europe, and we continually measure what we regard to be the priorities. We shall take all those matters into account.

NATO Nuclear Planning Group

Mr. Pike: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what decisions concerning modernisation of nuclear weapons were made at the last North Atlantic Treaty Organisation nuclear planning group meeting.

Mr. Bradley: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what decisions concerning nuclear-capable aircraft were made at the last North Atlantic Treaty Organisation nuclear planning group meeting.

Mr. Younger: No specific procurement or deployment decisions were taken, though further guidance was provided on the way ahead and of the need to keep our forces up to date. A copy of the communiqué issued after the Brussels NPG meeting has been placed in the Library of the House.

Mr. Pike: Why did the right hon. Gentleman choose to announce the replacement for Britain's RAF freefall nuclear bomb on "Panorama" and not to the House? Will he state categorically whether the cost of that replacement—and all other replacements—is fully included in the Defence Estimates to be announced next week? Will he also state whether he believes that this will place in jeopardy the agreements being reached under the INF treaty?

Mr. Younger: It will certainly have no effect on the agreements reached under the INF treaty, as this refers only to ground-based missiles with a range of 500 to 5,500 km. We have made a general allowance in our forward costings for possible weapons systems to replace the


freefall bombs. The hon. Gentleman is not as well informed as he usually is if he imagines that I announced anything new on "Panorama". No decision has been made on what would replace the freefall bombs, but the need to decide on a replacement has been referred to many times, most notably on 4 March 1988—the hon. Gentleman will find the reference in column 1288 of Hansard—when my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister made it clear that we have to find a replacement for these freefall bombs in due course.

Mr. Bradley: Is not the combination of more nuclear capable aircraft, more air-to-surface missiles and more United States nuclear-capable strike aircraft merely a replacement for the INF weapons cuts? Does NATO not already have superiority in such aircraft? Rather than increasing the number of such weapons, would it not be better to trade them against further Soviet arms cuts?

Mr. Younger: There has been a great reduction in the number of warheads in our provision for nuclear deterrence. More than 2,000 have been removed unilaterally over the last year or two. That is progress. With regard to the range of weapons systems, we shall in no sense be breaking the spirit or the letter of the INF treaty. We welcome that as a great achievement which our steadfastness and our unity have produced. Nevertheless, we have to maintain a range of possible options to deal with any likely attack. We must keep a range of different options—large, medium-sized and small.

Sir Geoffrey Johnson Smith: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there is unqualified support for his policy of modernising the British nuclear deterrent—[Interruption.]—from Conservative Members at any rate, as always? Will he confirm that it is the policy of the Soviet Union to modernise its nuclear defence forces, including its short-range missile systems?

Mr. Younger: Yes, my hon. Friend is correct. I think that support for this policy has been amply demonstrated in at least three general elections, and that goes very much wider than just support from Conservative Members. The Soviet Union has recognised the common sense of keeping its weapons up to date. It is modernising its missile systems with the more accurate SS21 system. Furthermore, it is planning shortly to launch two types of sea-launched cruise missiles. These are sensible modernisations of systems which, as far as I know, are not in breach of the INF treaty.

Miss Widdecombe: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the policy of NATO is still to maintain only a minimum deterrence and that this modernisation is within that policy and meets that criterion?

Mr. Younger: I am glad to confirm what my hon. Friend has said. Our deterrent systems are always at the minimum that they can be, and that goes for the Trident system as well. It all comes back to the basic point. Although there might be arguments for or against having various kinds of weapons, I see no argument for having out-of-date ones.

Mr. Wallace: Will the Secretary of State clarify what he said on "Panorama" about stand-off nuclear missiles for Tornado aircraft? How much has been allowed for any modernisation in the general costings to which he referred? Will he give an assurance that any sum that might be spent

will not in any way jeopardise projects such as the European fighter aircraft, the new generation of tanks or the surface fleet being maintained at about 50 vessels?

Mr. Younger: We expect to maintain all our main defence commitments with the present budgetary arrangements. There is no difficulty about that. No decisions have been taken on the replacement for free fall bombs. We are examining possible options. We have allowed a generalised amount of money in our forward costings for replacement, but we cannot do anything accurately until we know broadly what the cost of the systems will be.

Mr. Mans: Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is vital to update the RAF's nuclear capabilities? The tasks that it has to perform at the moment, and will have to perform in the future, are not the same as those that cruise missiles have performed in the recent past. Further, will he confirm that the USSR already has a nuclear stand-off capability for some of its aircraft?

Mr. Younger: Yes, I confirm my hon. Friend's last point. I understand that the Soviet Union has nuclear capable short-range air-to-ground missiles on its Backfire bombers. It is taking a precaution which some Opposition Members maintain we should not. My hon. Friend is correct in saying that the general provision of weapon systems, as part of our nuclear deterrence, is the vital part of our defence.

Mr. Denzil Davies: Will the Secretary of State say when the decision was taken to replace the freefall bombs on the Tornado aircraft? Was that decision taken at Montebello in 1983, or later? Secondly, i n view of the answers that he has given, could he also tell the House the generalised sum involved in the defence budget for modernisation, as he calls it?

Mr. Younger: We are at far too early a stage to be able to put any definite figure on this. That is not surprising. as we do not yet know the price, the quantity or what type of missile would be available.
As the right hon. Gentleman has asked, it would he helpful if I clarified the position on Montebello. There were three points in the communiqué' issued following the Montebello meeting. First, the Ministers agreed a reduction of 1,400 warheads in NATO's nuclear stockpile in Europe. Incidentally, that has now been completed and has brought NATO's stockpile in Europe to its lowest level for 20 years. Secondly, Ministers agreed on the need for improvements to ensure the responsiveness, effectiveness and survivability of remaining forces. Thirdly, Ministers instructed SACEUR to develop proposals that would implement what Ministers had agreed. Ministers took no decisions on specific weapons systems, but SACEUR came back at the Luxembourg meeting in 1985 with proposals, among which there was the proposal for the deployment of a tactical air-to-surface missile. That is now being pursued as a possibility by the United States, ourselves and France, but no decisions have been taken or are in prospect in the short term.

Maritime Strategy

Mr. Stott: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what proposals concerning maritime strategy he will be taking to the Eurogroup meeting of Defence Ministers in Brussels on 25 May.

Mr. Younger: None, Sir.

Mr. Stott: I am interested to hear that reply to my question. If the Secretary of State is not considering a maritime strategy, perhaps he could pay some attention to the importance of the British merchant fleet in the development of a maritime strategy. Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the merchant fleet figures in his defence White Paper make depressing reading? How many more ships, and how many more British-trained merchant seamen, are we to lose before the Secretary of State acts in the national interest?

Mr. Younger: We watch trends in the British merchant fleet with considerable concern because we rely on being able to take ships from trade for military purposes from time to time. However, in spite of the steady reductions in recent years, which now appear to have levelled off, the position is that, apart from one or two specialist types, sufficient vessels would be available for any likely defence needs. We watch the matter carefully and would be worried if there were too few for our needs.

Mr. Holt: Does my right hon. Friend accept that his answer that we do not have a strategy is alarming? Does he admit that unless we know how many ships we have we will not know how many we might need in any eventuality? There is great concern that the Royal Navy is being run down to a level that would be unsustainable in the event of hostilities anywhere in the world.

Mr. Younger: I should correct the impression that has grown up because of the supplementary question asked by the hon. Member for Wigan (Mr. Stott). I did not state that we had no maritime strategy. I said that I would not be taking any proposals on such a strategy to the Eurogroup meeting, which is a very different thing. We have a well-known maritime strategy, which is part of the NATO strategy, to which the Royal Navy makes a great contribution.

Mr. Clay: Returning to the Secretary of State's answer to the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Wigan (Mr. Stott), will the right hon. Gentleman look at the age profile of what is left of the British merchant fleet, because surely he knows that what is left is, on the whole, very old? New ships will have to be built in the 1990s because the remaining ships will not be seaworthy by then. It is simply a question whether the new ships that will be required will be built in other countries or in Britain. In the interests of his own Department, should not the Secretary of State persuade his colleagues in the Department of Trade and Industry to wake up, pull their fingers out and save British merchant shipbuilding?

Mr. Younger: My concern is to ensure that at any time sufficient ships could be taken from trade to be used for military purposes. That is still the case today, but we watch the position carefully. We in the Ministry of Defence cannot construct merchant ships. We have to rely on their

being available. We keep a close check on what is available and, as I have said, at present it is still adequate for our needs.

Mr. Ian Taylor: Does my right hon. Friend agree that West German interest in our maritime fleet is great, particularly in the ability of our submarines and, in due course, Trident to attack Soviet territory, and that that is important, given the INF agreement which otherwise would limit all land-based nuclear action to taking place on German soil? Has he received representations from the West German Government to that effect?

Mr. Younger: In my discussions with the West German Government they solidly supported the provision of the British nuclear deterrent—the Polaris system as it now is, or the Trident system in the future. It is widely agreed throughout NATO that that is an extremely valuable contribution to NATO, as well as being a safeguard for our own defence. I have noticed recently with interest that Mr. Gorbachev has agreed that the British Trident system should not be included in the START negotiations.

Mr. O'Neill: The Secretary of State has concentrated on the number of ships. Is he not concerned about the figures in the White Paper relating to the number of cadets in training, which, in the last six years, has fallen from 4,000 to 550? That drop suggests that in the future there will not only be an insufficient number of British or, indeed, European, ships, but, more important, that there will be a dearth of British seamen capable of manning those ships and fulfilling the role that the merchant marine has carried out so valiantly in the past.

Mr. Younger: Yes, we believe that a possible shortage of British crews is a greater problem than the possible shortage of British ships. We are considering both those matters carefully and examining ways in which we could build up a reserve of crews for that purpose.

Mr. Hind: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the maritime defence strategy is to keep enemy forces at arm's length and to deny them freedom of operation? Will he also tell us what plans his Department has for ordering further Trident submarines?

Mr. Younger: Of course, NATO strategy is to ensure that we have the ability to range on international waters and the high seas and to ensure that we can keep them safe for the passage of our shipping and of international shipping generally. There is no doubt that that is a prime factor in NATO strategy.

SAS

Mr. Dalyell: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the role of the SAS in Europe.

Mr. Ian Stewart: No, Sir.

Mr. Dalyell: Under what and on whose authority does the SAS operate?

Mr. Stewart: It has long been the policy of this Government and their predecessors not to comment on the activities of, or arrangements for, our special forces. To depart from that policy would, in my view, be against the


interests not only of members of our armed forces but of British citizens who may he exposed to danger at home or abroad.

Mr. Conway: Does my hon. Friend accept that the SAS has a fine tradition of serving not only this democratically elected Government but their predecessors of a Socialist persuasion, and that its expertise and courage is held in the highest esteem, not only in this House but among the general public who will deny the whingers opposite who sell the SAS short?

Mr. Stewart: I welcome my hon. Friend's support for the proficiency of our armed forces.

Mr. Cryer: Surely the Minister accepts some sort of principle of democratic accountability. Does not the absence of such democratic accountability suggest that the SAS could institute a shoot-to-kill policy of its own without any control whatsoever? Is the Minister trying to claim that that is what happened in Gibraltar, or was that planned? All that the House wants to know is who planned it, who made the decision and who gave the orders. Surely we are entitled to know that.

Mr. Stewart: All military operations and activities in this country or by our armed forces are ultimately under political control. I should emphasise that our soldiers are highly trained to operate within the law and according to strict rules.

Departmental Insurance

Mr. Michael McNair-Wilson: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what steps he takes to ensure that his Department uses the services of the insurance industry so as to mitigate its annual losses in equipment and facilities.

Mr. Freeman: The Ministry of Defence does not generally insure against the risk of any loss to property, buildings or equipment. Over the long term, the cost of insurance should exceed average losses. Although the risks are potentially very large and widely distributed, they can never produce losses maturing in any one year so as to have a significant effect on the overall financial position of the Exchequer.

Mr. McNair-Wilson: Will my hon. Friend give the House the figures for the loss, particularly by fire damage, to stores and buildings at the Ministry of Defence over the past five years? Can he estimate the likely cost of the fire damage to the central ordnance depot at Donnington, the second fire that it has endured within the past two years? Does he not think that the time has come for some of those risks to be borne by the insurance industry?

Mr. Freeman: The answer to the first question is, over the past five years, approximately £152 million. The answer to the second question is that it is still too early to provide estimates, but the figure is probably in excess of £100 million. The answer to the third question is no. We have no plans to insure specific losses, but we have plans to extend the principle of insurance where the insurance industry can offer a service, such as settling claims. We do that with third party motor vehicle insurance and civilian employers' liability.

Mr. Foulkes: What is the position about aircraft such as the Tornado that was recently lost in Germany? Will the Minister reconsider the arrangements, particularly in relation to relatives of the people who were killed.

Mr. Freeman: We always regret aircraft accidents. The aircraft accident trend is down. Last year was the best year on record for the number of aircraft lost. The service men who lose their lives or who are injured are covered by the armed forces pension scheme. If negligence is involved then, following the repeal of section 10 of the 1947 Act, they can claim against the Ministry of Defence.

Ex-Government Employees (Outside Appointments)

Mr. Litherland: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what representations he has received about former civil servants and members of Her Majesty's forces accepting outside appointments with defence contractors.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence Procurement (Mr. Tim Sainsbury): The Government have received the House of Commons Defence Committee's report on the acceptance of appointments in commerce and industry by members of the armed forces and officials of the Ministry of Defence. As usual, a Government response will be made to this report in due course.

Mr. Litherland: Can the Minister explain why the Ministry of Defence hindered the inquiry of the Select Committee on Defence into the increasing number of civil servants and military staff who have taken up cosy, lucrative positions with commercial defence weapon contractors? When will the Government come clean and lift this shroud of secrecy on a matter that is of legitimate public concern?

Mr. Sainsbury: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will understand when I say that it would not be right for me to anticipate the Government's response to the report, which, of course, we are taking very seriously.

Mr. Latham: Will my hon. Friend confirm that one of the benefits of Mr. Levene's appointment is that it will try to bring to an end some of the cosy relationships that existed in the past? Is my hon. Friend aware that the next time I get a letter from an admiral on behalf of a defence company it will go straight into the wastepaper basket?

Mr. Sainsbury: I agree with my hon. Friend that there are many benefits in the more competitive approach of defence procurement that we have introduced. I hope he will accept that, on the face of it, it would not seem very sensible completely to deny to the country and, indeed, to industry and commerce, the benefit of people who have experience of the armed forces.

Mr. Rogers: Does the Under-Secretary of State accept that the Opposition have grave misgivings about the relationship to major defence contractors not only of service men and ex-civil servants but of ex-Cabinet Ministers such as the right hon. Member for Chingford (Mr. Tebbit)? When will the Government draw up a more effective code of conduct so that politicians do not step out of jobs in which they give contracts into companies where they place contracts?

Mr. Sainsbury: I shall confine my answer to the points arising from the question. I assure the hon. Gentleman that we take very seriously the issues about which he speaks. We try to take the greatest care to avoid approving any appointment that could give rise to a suggestion of a conflict of interests. We shall be replying to the report in due course.

Weapons Purchasing Policy

Mr. Stokes: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what action he is taking to maximise weapon purchasing economy through collaborative ventures with North Atlantic Treaty Organisation allies.

Mr. Sainsbury: In order to derive maximum benefit by co-operation, we play a full role in the relevant multilateral forums—essentially the Conference of International Armament Directors, CNAD, and the Independent European Programme Group, IEPG—and in our various bilateral contacts.

Mr. Stokes: I am grateful for that answer, but I am not exactly clear about what it means. Has any progress whatever been made in the last five years or so?

Mr. Sainsbury: I am happy to assure my hon. Friend that we all get perplexed by these numerous initials by which the MOD confuses things. I am glad to say that there has been substantial progress. We very much recognise that major benefits of increased collaboration accrue not only from the reduced costs to each country of developing complex weapons systems, but from lower unit production costs that result from longer production runs.

Mr. Douglas: Will the Minister examine carefully the respective economies arising from our purchase of AWACS from Boeing? Will he give some clear information to the House about the nature of this contract and tell us why we have not obtained £80 million-worth of firm orders to offset purchases in excess of £1·5 billion? What economies will accrue to the United Kingdom in relation to that particular collaborative purchase, and when will the Ministry of Defence get off its backside and ensure that British industry gets its fair contractural share of offset purchases?

Mr. Sainsbury: The purchase of the AWACS from Boeing is not part of a collaborative programme but is simply the purchase of equipment produced overseas. It carries a substantial offset of 130 per cent. of the cost. We have absolute confidence that on this occasion, as previously, Boeing will fulfil its obligations under that agreement.

Mr. Brazier: I put it to my hon. Friend that deals of the Goalkeeper/Rolls-Royce type, in which effectively the swap of one type of equipment for another takes place, offer the same benefits as collaboration in terms of longer production runs, and so on, but without all the bureaucracy that so besets collaborative ventures—especially smaller ones.

Mr. Sainsbury: My hon. Friend is right. There are other ways of obtaining the benefits of longer production runs and of enjoying co-operation among NATO allies than through collaboration. Reciprocal purchasing is clearly one of them.

Arms Levels

Mr. Fatchett: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what discussions he has had with his North Atlantic Treaty Organisation counterparts about conventional arms levels.

Mr. John Evans: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what discussions he has had with his North Atlantic Treaty Organisation counterparts about conventional arms levels.

Mr. Younger: I have regular discussions with my NATO colleagues on conventional arms levels, both in terms of our approach to conventional arms control and the conventional defence improvements exercise.

Mr. Fatchett: Does the Secretary of State for Defence accept in principle that any reduction in conventional arms should be on the basis of reciprocity. In other words, those weapons in which the West has superiority should be bargained against those weapons in which the Soviets have superiority. Is the Minister prepared to accept that principle?

Mr. Younger: Not exactly. The objective in conventional arms reductions is to work down the considerable imbalance which exists. We are clear that, for that purpose, asymmetrical reductions will be necessary.

Mr. Denzil Davies: Will the Secretary of State for Defence tell the House whether NATO has now agreed upon its negotiating position in respect of the conventional arms stability talks? Can he say, in particular, whether it has been agreed by both the British Government and NATO that ground-based attack aircraft will be included in those negotiations? If they are not, it will make a mockery of the talks.

Mr. Younger: In the negotiations we have made it plain that the proposed talks are to be about conventional armed forces, including all conventional forces and equipment based on land, regardless of what other capability they may have. We have explicitly stated that nuclear and chemical weapons, together with naval forces, are excluded. There is no need to single out for inclusion any one type of conventional armament solely because it has the additional capability to deliver nuclear or chemical weapons.

Mr. Sayeed: Does my right hon. Friend agree that it would be perfectly possible for the Soviet Union to offer to withdraw Warsaw pact forces, but not the equipment, which would make little actual difference to the Soviets' fighting capability on the central front?

Mr. Younger: I agree. We believe that the conventional imbalance can be redressed through a set of measures including reductions, limitations, redeployment provisions and related measures, as well as the establishment of equal ceilings. That outcome will require highly asymmetrical reductions by the East and will entail, for example, the elimination from Europe of tens of thousands of Warsaw pact weapons relevant to surprise attack—among them, tanks and artillery pieces.

Mr. Baldry: Does my right hon. Friend recall that before the last general election the Labour party was exhorting us to strengthen our conventional weapons? Now it seems to be suggesting that we should weaken our


conventional weapons. The only inference to be drawn from that is that the Labour party is interested, not in the defence of Britain, but in her disarmament?

Mr. Younger: As my hon. Friend points out, many strange things were said by the Labour party before the last election, and the ones that he has mentioned are certainly among them. I think, however, that even those are not as strange as the doctrine that we should have out-of-date weapons, to which the Labour party seems now to attach itself.

Merchant Shipping (Wartime Use)

Mr. Doran: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he last reviewed arrangements for the use of merchant shipping in time of war.

Mr. Ian Stewart: Arrangements for the use of merchant shipping in time of war are kept under regular review.

Mr. Doran: Has not the Government's wilful neglect of their merchant shipping fleet and merchant seamen severely reduced the country's capacity to defend itself'?

Mr. Stewart: No, Sir. We judge that there are sufficient British and British-dependent territory ships for the needs of the British forces. In the Merchant Shipping Bill we have included powers to assist with the training of merchant seamen, and, as the hon. Gentleman will know, provision for a Merchant Navy reserve.

Oral Answers to Questions — PRIME MINISTER

Engagements

Mr. Sims: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 24 May.

The Prime Minister (Mrs. Margaret Thatcher): This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House I shall be having further meetings later today. This evening I hope to have an audience of Her Majesty The Queen.

Mr. Sims: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the degree of support in the country for the sentiments that she expressed in her speech to the Church of Scotland? Would she care to take this opportunity to reassert that one of the principles of the Christian ethic is personal and individual responsibility, and that some of the other principles, such as care, compassion and tolerance, can be, and are, shared by people of all political parties—including the party to which she and I are proud to belong?

The Prime Minister: I am most grateful to my hon. Friend for his kind words. It was, of course, an expression of personal beliefs and views—[Interruption.] On that occasion I agreed with what my hon. Friend said. As I pointed out at the time, there may be others who disagree, but it is a mark of Christian manners and courtesy to do so in a very mannerly way.

Mr. Kinnock: Will the Prime Minister now unfreeze child benefit and restore the 70p cuts that she has made in the past two years?

The Prime Minister: Child benefit is reviewed each year. This year we chose to give a great deal more to children in families who had low earnings, so that we helped those who needed it most.

Mr. Kinnock: It did not make up for the child benefit cuts. When I heard the Prime Minister on Saturday saying that she considered that children were "a precious trust", I wondered whether she meant it in practice. Now I know that she does not. "By their fruits ye shall know them."

The Prime Minister: Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will do me the courtesy of reading the speech. I do not believe—and it is a personal view—that one discharges all one's duties by casting them off on to the state.

Mr. Kinnock: The Prime Minister has cut child benefit. She has stopped free school meals. She has ended single payments. Can she tell us which passage of the Bible inspired her to do all that? Could it have been Matthew 27:24,
Pilate … took water, and washed his hands

The Prime Minister: I believe that the right hon. Gentleman debases everything—[Interruption.]—that he and I both probably believe in if we try to exchange quotations across the Chamber. I made it perfectly clear in that speech that we simply cannot delegate the exercise of mercy and generosity to others, and that therefore there is a very important place both for help through the state—which we operate—and personal help and personal responsibility. The right hon. Gentleman asked me personally. Perhaps he will kindly look at the amount which I have voluntarily forgone from my salary over the past nine years.[Interruption.]

Mr. Key: May I congratulate my right hon. Friend on the international lead that she has given in arranging for the historic meeting between British and Soviet scientists at the chemical defence establishment at Porton Down in my constituency? Will she join me in praising the work of the scientific and industrial civil servants, without whose dedication and loyalty our role in those talks would not be so important?

The Prime Minister: Yes, I will gladly do that. As my hon. Friend is aware, there were visits from this country and from our allies to the Soviet Union with regard to chemical weapons. We have no chemical weapons in this country. We gave them up a very long time ago, and this is a return visit under the agreement that we have to inspect each other's premises.

Dr. Owen: In view of the importance of a revising second Chamber for this Parliament, does the Prime Minister accept that it is now time to look at the proposals of Lord Home in 1978 for an elected and nominated second Chamber? The reform of the other place is now right. If we are to have a sensible revisory process, it requires a change in the voting membership of the other place.

The Prime Minister: As the right hon. Gentleman will be aware, the community charge Bill for Scotland went through their Lordships' House completely, and was revised in their Lordships' House, before the election. We put in our manifesto plans that went into far greater detail because a similar Bill had already been through their


Lordships' House. I believe that there is no such difficulty as the right hon. Gentleman suggests. I believe that yesterday we won on the argument—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. It takes up a great deal of time to have so much noise.

The Prime Minister: During the debate 75 Cross Benchers were present and voting; 43 Cross Benchers supported the Government and 32 voted with the Labour Opposition.

Mr. Colin Shepherd: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the SAS regiment based in Herefordshire has served this country with quiet distinction, not least for the past 13 years, during which it has been deployed in Northern Ireland? Does she agree that that success has been due largely to the anonymity with which it has worked? Does she not agree, therefore, that it is highly irresponsible for hon. Members to seek to name names, not least because of the jeopardy in which soldiers' families would be placed?

The Prime Minister: Yes, I join my hon. Friend in paying warm tribute to the work of the SAS. I agree with him that for it to continue to protect our security it must not be discussed in detail in this House or anywhere else.

Mr. Tom Clarke: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 24 May.

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Clarke: Has the Prime Minister had time to glimpse at "Just Sharing", one of the books that was presented to her by the Church of Scotland on Saturday? Does she agree with its conclusion that the reality of one and a half million men, women and children who live on the borders of poverty represents a sick society in Scotland? In view of the charity which the Church demonstrated by listening to the right hon. Lady's speech, will she respond by showing some humility and offering a real challenge to poverty, if only because pious words do not always represent Christian values, but positive policies and a caring approach in a meaningful sense often do?

The Prime Minister: I was glad to receive the pamphlet "Just Sharing". It gives me an opportunity to point out that because of the Government's policies there is far more available for sharing among those who need it.

Mr. David Evans: In condemning the violence at Wembley at last Saturday's match between England and Scotland, does my right hon. Friend agree that it is time the Football League and the Football Association stopped pussyfooting on the members only issue and copied the scheme at Luton where, during two full seasons and 80 matches, there was not one single arrest inside or outside the ground?

The Prime Minister: Once again we had violence and hooliganism, which disfigures football and will make it much more difficult to get back to playing in Europe. I agree with my hon. Friend that the scheme he introduced to Luton, which was members only and no away spectators, is excellent and has brought families back to football, to their great joy. I wish that more would follow his excellent example.

Mr. Roy Hughes: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 24 May.

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Hughes: Does the Prime Minister recall that in her speech to the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland at the weekend she attempted to reconcile the creed of greed with morality? In that speech she also pointed out that "each one counts." Can she confirm that yesterday that was the moral imperative uppermost in her mind when she whipped in hundreds of backwoodsmen in the House of Lords to get her over her troubles on the poll tax?

The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman will not be surprised to hear that I do not agree with him about the premise which underlines his question. [Interruption.] I do not believe that people, such as nurses and doctors, are exercising the creed of greed when they ask for more.

Mr. Lawrence: Does not the standing ovation which the Royal College of Nursing gave to our right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services show that the angels believe the NHS is safe in her hands?

The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir. Again, because of the policies carried out by this Government, there is more money to distribute for social services and far more money to distribute to the Health Service. The reception that my right hon. Friend had yesterday was well deserved.

Mr. Allan Roberts: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 24 May.

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Roberts: Since 1979, during the nine years that the Prime Minister has been in power, homelessness has doubled in Britain. Can she tell us why?

The Prime Minister: If the hon. Gentleman reads the speech of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment he will find an explanation. First, the population of working age is about 1⅓ million more than it was 10 years ago. Secondly, unfortunately, as my right hon. Friend set out in his speech, the number of broken marriages and single parents greatly increases the need for housing. Therefore, more houses are having to be provided for approximately the same number of people.

Mr. Bill Walker: Is my right hon. Friend aware that many people in Scotland are delighted to see her coming to the Church of Scotland General Assembly because it is a pleasant change to have a leader who is a practising Christian, who believes in what she is doing and who clearly demonstrates this every day of the week, not least by the courage with which she carries out her duties?

The Prime Minister: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. The Opposition would not have attacked what I said so vigorously if it had not been as well received as it was.

Mr. Steel: Does the Prime Minister remember that when I asked her last month about the Church of Scotland report on poverty in Scotland, showing that 31 per cent. of the population were living at or near the margins of poverty, she said she had not seen the report? Does she recognise that that was the report handed to her by the Moderator at the end of her interesting speech, and does she now accept that the Government have a direct and unavoidable duty to do something about it?

The Prime Minister: As I have indicated many times in the past few minutes, because of the policies of this Government there is more money available to share, there are more houses, there is a better Health Service and there are better salaries; in fact, life is better off all round, precisely because of our policies.

Mr. Allason: Given the conviction yesterday of Mr. Martin Chilvers, will my right hon. Friend tell the House when the recommendations of the Security Commission

report—published three years ago—to introduce polygraph testing into GCHQ and other establishments will be implemented?

The Prime Minister: As my right hon. Friend indicated in a reply, which I think was given some time during April, and as my hon. Friend is aware, we have asked for a scientific assessment of the phase 1 experiment on the polygraph. However, there are different views from the scientific body as to how useful that is. When the report has come in, we shall assess it and make an announcement to the House.

Seafreight Freeway (Fire)

Mr. Jonathan Aitken: (by private notice): To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on the fire and subsequent air-sea rescue operation involving the Channel ferry Seafreight Freeway.

The Minister for Public Transport (Mr. David Mitchell): At 9.45 pm last night, the Sealink ferry Seafreight Freeway, en route Dover-Zeebrugge, reported a serious fire on board, and indicated that it might be necessary to abandon ship. There were 75 persons on board: 41 passengers plus 34 crew.
An RAF Wessex helicopter based at Manston was immediately scrambled to the scene to airlift one badly burned engineer to Canterbury hospital. Dover, Ramsgate and Calais lifeboats were launched. Two Sea King helicopters from RAF Coltishall proceeded to Manston, and the coastguard helicopter from Lee-on-Solent was also dispatched. At the same time, a fire-fighting tug, Dexteros, sailed from Dover and a second tug, Deft, stood by at Dover to take on a team from Kent fire brigade. Calais lifeboat and a French tug, Astral Fish, also sailed for the scene.
By 11.30 pm the vessel was anchored 28 miles east of Ramsgate, and reported the fire contained but not out. The tug Deft left Dover with a fire-fighting team and equipment at this time. Just after midnight seven Kent fire officers were winched on board by one of the Sea King helicopters. A further eight fire officers were standing by the ship in the coastguard helicopter. By this time the fire was becoming under control, and shortly afterwards the master reported that the fire was out, and the coastguard helicopter, having winched extra fire fighters on board, returned to Manston. One person was still missing. His body was subsequently recovered from the engine room, and returned to Dover by the Dover lifeboat. I very much regret this sad loss of life and injury and I am sure the whole House will join me in extending its sympathy to the relatives and friends concerned.
The tug Astral Fish is currently towing the Seafreight Freeway to Dunkirk with passengers and crew, plus 13 fire officers on board.
Police and fire liaison officers were in attendance throughout, at the Dover coastguard rescue co-ordination centre, whence the rescue operation was organised. The contingency plans for such major operations appear to have worked well. I congratulate all those involved in carrying out the operation swiftly and professionally.
Two principal surveyors from the Department of Transport have been appointed on behalf of the Bermudan authorities to investigate the accident and have already started work. It would not be sensible at this time to make any further comment until all the facts have been established.

Mr. Aitken: I join my hon. Friend in his expression of sympathy to the bereaved and injured and in his appreciation of the skill and courage of the air-sea rescue services. May I particularly commend the medical rescue work of my constituent, Dr. John Beale, a Ramsgate general practitioner, who was winched on to the blazing ship through heavy smoke from the first RAF Wessex

helicopter on the scene? I also commend the exemplary fire-fighting by the well-trained crew members on the Seafreight Freeway, which probably saved many lives.
At a time when safety on cross-Channel ferries is a matter of public concern, could the inquiry report as speedily as possible? May I express the hope that its findings will soon confirm the view of many of those on the scene last night that the fire was a one-off accident that is unlikely to reveal any inherent weaknesses in the overall standards of safety on such vessels?

Mr. Mitchell: I join my hon. Friend in commending the bravery and care for the injured of Dr. John Beale, who joined the vessel from a helicopter while it was still at sea and on fire. As for the report, we should wait and see exactly what it says. In the first instance, the publication of the report is a matter for the Bermudan authorities. However, if any lessons emerge, I shall ensure that a report is made available.

Mr. David Young: Is it not time that we asked the inquiry to consider that there should be a statutory obligation on transport companies such as ferry companies to pay money in respect of people who are killed or disabled while being transported, irrespective of whether there is a direct responsibility for blame? The families of people who die in such circumstances face severe problems. Is it not time, particularly after the two disasters one after the other, that there was a statutory obligation for responsibility for payments to be made to the relatives of the deceased?

Mr. Mitchell: That is somewhat outside the original question, but I shall write to the hon. Gentleman and set out the position for him.

Mr. Robert Adley: Is my hon. Friend not slightly concerned that since Mr. Sherwood acquired Sealink from British Rail we have, shall I say, no more than coincidentally, had an increasing number of such incidents that cause some of us to remember the debate we had a few weeks ago on safety at sea? Will my hon. Friend look into the whole question of the operations of Sealink in the light of the legislation on safety at sea currently passing through Parliament? Would he not be doing us all a service if he did everything he could to ensure that the Channel tunnel was built as fast as possible?

Mr. Mitchell: Any fire must be considered to be a serious matter and I join other hon. Members in expressing regret over the loss of life and injury in this case. Any lessons that emerge will be taken fully into account when we decide what follow-up action is appropriate. International regulations for the protection of ships and those on board from the effects of fire are detailed and comprehensive. Nevertheless, I can assure the House that if this unfortunate accident produces any lessons, we shall not hesitate to act on them. I remind my hon. Friend that the merchant shipping regulations have recently been introduced in a number of areas.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: Is it not significant that only a few years after privatisation a Tory Member should complain in the House about the fact that Sealink has a query against it on safety matters? Would it not have been more unfortunate if one of the P and O ferries were placed in the same predicament as the ferry last night because the numbers of staff available would have been much reduced?


Is it not also worth noting that at this time P and O is allowed to use the commando base at Deal free of charge to train some of its personnel because of the battle that it is having with the National Union of Seamen? If he is going to hold an inquiry—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is going very wide of the subject.

Mr. Mitchell: I regret that the hon. Gentleman should make a rather squalid attempt to introduce politics into a matter to which they are not relevant in any way. As for his remarks about the safety aspect, I have said that the matter is under investigation.

Sir David Price: Is it not clear that among the many people who deserve the congratulations of the House is the master of the ferry, who behaved in an exemplary manner, and that, in answer to the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) and everyone else, in no way can the responsibility of a master for the safety of his ship be handed over to anyone else? All the evidence is that on this occasion the master behaved admirably.

Mr. Mitchell: I have no reason to disagree with my hon. Friend.

Mr. Nigel Spearing: Will the Minister tell us, in view of the praise that has been given to the crew of the Sealink vessel for its efficiency, what difference in conditions, manning and terms of employment there would have been if that ship had been a P and O vessel? Will he look at that as part of the inquiry?

Mr. Mitchell: I do not think that it would be right for me to speculate on that matter. The level of manning will be a matter covered by the investigation, and if any irregularity is revealed consideration will be given to whether there should be a prosecution.

Mr. Andrew Rowe (Mid-Kent): It is no surprise to Kent Members that the Kent fire brigade should be singled out for praise for being efficient. Does my hon. Friend agree that this is a further dramatic example of the way in which the rapidly growing cross-Channel traffic puts strains on the Kent fire brigade, and will he give the assurance that as the tunnel comes on line the additional responsibilities that will be carried by the Kent fire brigade will be taken fully into account?

Mr. Mitchell: Yes, certainly; and I should add, of course, that in this case the whole operation was co-ordinated by the coastguards, who also deserve the congratulations and appreciation of the House.

Mr. Eddie Loyden: Does the Minister agree that nobody will take the Government seriously while they continue to ignore the need for

statutory manning of vessels, as happened in the past under the Board of Trade, and that, until there is statutory manning, and while it is left to market forces, incidents of this kind will happen again and the Government will wring their hands again and weep tears as they have in the past? Does he not think that the inquiry should compel the Government to take action along those lines?

Mr. Mitchell: The question whether there is adequate manning and whether any offence has been committed will, of course, be covered by the inquiry.

Mr. Kenneth Hind: Will my hon. Friend confirm that much of the success in the saving of lives in last night's accident was attributable to the good training of the Sealink seamen? Will he also confirm that this is the first fire on a Sealink ferry since Sealink was privatised, compared with three fires on Sealink ferries in 1980, 1981 and 1983, all in the engine room? Is this not quite a change and an improvement in safety standards since privatisation?

Mr. Mitchell: The matters of adequacy of training and any record in this matter are for the investigation rather than for me today.

Mr. Tony Lloyd: The whole House will join the Minister in sending condolences to the bereaved and the injured. I should like to place on record my tribute to the many people involved in the rescue operation, which was highly successful. Certainly the skills of the crew members in the engine room were critical in keeping down the loss of life and injury.
Will the Minister—I should be grateful if he would pay careful attention to this—confirm that, had the fire taken place on a P and O vessel, rather than the five engineering officers and four ratings who were available, there would have been only three officers and three ratings? Will the Minister take into account the comment that has been made to me in the last two hours by an experienced officer who has regularly sailed on such vessels that, had this fire taken place on a P and O vessel, what was a human tragedy would have turned into a major disaster?
Will the Minister make sure that that point is taken firmly on board by the inquiry and that the inquiry will report in this country as well as in Bermuda, and as quickly as possible, so that we may ensure that the level of crewing of these vessels will not lead to loss of life in the future?

Mr. Mitchell: I join with the hon. Gentleman in his tribute to the crew, who clearly played a brave and distinguished part in ensuring that the fire was brought under control as quickly as possible.
The crew numbers of all the P and O ships involved in Channel ferry services have been checked and fully comply with the regulations. The hon. Gentleman need not draw any false implications from that.

Business of the House

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. John Wakeham): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a short business statement. The business for the remainder of the week will now be as follows:
WEDNESDAY 25 MAY—Motion for the spring Adjournment.
Timetable motion on the Firearms (Amendment) Bill, followed by completion of remaining stages of the Firearms (Amendment) Bill.
THURSDAY 26 MAY—Motion to take note of the White Paper on developments in the European Community July-December 1987 (Cm 336).
Motion on the Lord Chancellor's salary order.
FRIDAY 27 MAY—Adjournment motions.

Mr. Frank Dobson: What we have just heard must be the most extraordinary business statement of the decade. The Government, with a majority of 100, are proposing to guillotine their own Members rather than the Opposition. We are used to Tory politicians shooting themselves in the foot, but the Tory Front Bench is now proposing to shoot Tory Back Benchers in the back—which is a novel use of the guillotine.
The guillotine is directed not at the Opposition, who broadly support the objects of the Firearms (Amendment) Bill, but at Tory Back Benchers, who do not. The Labour party will oppose the guillotine, not because it is opposed to effective gun laws but because we are in favour of fair and effective gun laws.
The Bill was ill thought out and badly drafted from the start. It has since been heavily amended by the Government. The last straw was the sudden extension of the Bill to cover Northern Ireland. Whatever views hon. Members may have about Northern Ireland, few could fail to recognise that the use of firearms is a bigger problem in Northern Ireland than it is in England, Scotland and Wales. This slipshod Bill is to be extended to Northern Ireland as an afterthought. We believe that that is no way to treat the House, and we certainly do not believe that it is the way to treat the terrible problems of Northern Ireland.

Mr. Wakeham: I hope that the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) will do better tomorrow, should he catch your eye, Mr. Speaker, than he has done today, and will address himself to the fact that when the Bill was introduced the Opposition wanted it to be implemented speedily. I regret the necessity to introduce the timetable motion. The Bill has been scrutinised carefully in Standing Committee, and I have no doubt that the right course is to allow the House to reach a decision on it in an orderly manner and at a reasonable time of day.

Mr. Jerry Wiggin: How often has it been the practice to guillotine a Bill halfway through its Report stage? Will my right hon. Friend explain why, with many hours available to debate the Bill last night, he

drew stumps at 2.20 am? Could it be that the supporters of the Government were as irritated by the Government's activities as I am?

Mr. Wakeham: It is rare that a guillotine motion is introduced on Report, and I regret that it is necessary. As I said to the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras, it is right for the House to reach a decision in an orderly manner and at a reasonable time of day, and that is why we adjourned the debate when we did.

Mr. James Molyneaux: Does the Leader of the House agree that a great deal of time would have been saved yesterday if the Bill had been applied to Northern Ireland from the beginning instead of in the most unorthodox fashion after the Committee had finished its deliberations? Is there not a lesson there for the future? Does the right hon. Gentleman further agree that, if the timetable motion is approved by the House tomorrow, it is inevitable that many of the issues raised in this ill-thought-out Bill will never be debated, never mind voted upon? Will he assure the House that he will prevail upon his Home Office colleagues to show a little more sympathy for and understanding of the issues that lie behind the new clauses and amendments that may not be reached?

Mrs. Wakeham: I shall table the motion later today, but there will be a total of five hours for the guillotine motion and the remaining clauses. That is an adequate amount of time and I am sure that Ministers will be as helpful as they can in reply to any constructive points that are made.

Mr. Eric Forth (Mid-Worcestershire): Will my right hon. Friend give weight to the arguments from both sides of the House in proportion to the number of hon. Members who were here last night? Does he recall that last night, late at night, more than 200 hon. Members supported my right hon. Friend and the Government while 10 were raising protests? Will he bear that in mind when listening to the empty words from Opposition Members—and, indeed, from my hon. Friends sitting behind me?

Mr. Wakeham: I am in favour of an orderly debate at the proper time of day, and that is what I am seeking to achieve. The points that my hon. Friend correctly makes are an added incentive to believe that we are doing the right thing.

Mr. James Wallace: Will the Leader of the House accept from me, as one who was here at 20 past 2 this morning, that it must be of considerable concern to those who believe in true democracy that whenever the Government run into opposition, particularly on their own side, they either wake up their dormant majority in the other place or use their majority in this place to stifle debate? How rare an event is it for a timetable motion to be brought in part way through a Report stage? Does the Leader of the House propose to introduce a timetable motion on any other legislation that has completed its Committee stage without such a motion?

Mr. Wakeham: I have no desire to bring in any timetable motions. If reasonable timetabling can be done voluntarily, so much the better. The hon. Gentleman cannot have it both ways. If the Government are defeated on an amendment in the other place, Opposition Members call it a triumph for democracy; if the Government succeed, they call it an abuse of power.

Mr. Jerry Hayes: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, apart from the rank hypocrisy of the Opposition parties, many Conservative Members find it mildly farcical that here we have a Government with a majority of over 100 and a Bill which was given its Second Reading without a vote, and yet the business managers seem to be held to ransom by 10 hon. Members, mostly on the Conservative Benches? Those of us who wish to see our wives and children from time to time are rather annoyed.

Mr. Wakeham: I hear what my hon. Friend says and I have no doubt that he will support us in the Lobby tomorrow.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: Do we detect here a further erosion in Back-Benchers' rights because there is now less time for the motion for the spring Adjournment? In order to save time, will the Leader of the House arrange for a statement on the article in The Guardian last Friday when the Prime Minister's principal private secretary—

Mr. Speaker: Order. With any luck, the hon. Gentleman may be able to raise that in the debate on the Adjournment motion.

Mr. Dalyell: rose—

Mr. Speaker: No, I do not want to hear it now. I have given the hon. Gentleman a very good tip.

Mr. Michael Colvin: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the anxiety on the Conservative Benches that the Government are changing the business of the House at very short notice, which is extremely inconvenient for many hon. Members, simply to get themselves out of the mess into which they have got themselves? Mr. Speaker, my question may relate to you as much as to my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House, because it concerns the selection and grouping of the amendments that we shall consider if the guillotine motion is carried. Will my right hon. Friend do his best to ensure that the three key issues of the consultative committee, self-loading rifles and the integral magazine of five to eight rounds and compensation are grouped in such a way as to give the House an opportunity to vote on them, because they go to the heart of the Bill?

Mr. Wakeham: I shall be tabling the guillotine motion later today and the Business Committee, if set up, will determine the way in which the debates take place. We shall do our best to meet the wishes of the House.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I remind the House that we have a very busy day ahead of us. I shall call the three hon. Gentlemen who have been rising, but their remarks must be related to the business for tomorrow.

Mr. Max Madden: In between his attempts to deal with his problems on the Firearms (Amendment) Bill, has the Leader of the House had an opportunity to talk to the Secretary of State for Social Services—

Mr. Speaker: Order. Not today; perhaps tomorrow.

Mr. Tony Banks: Much though we may disagree with the views of the hon. Member for Weston-super--Mare (Mr. Wiggin), many Back Benchers will admire the resolute campaign that he is mounting in pursuit of his interests. We hope that nothing nasty will happen to him because of that.

Mr. Michael Foot: Speak for yourself.

Mr. Banks: I am sure that I speak for all hon. Members on both sides of the House when I say that I hope that the hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare will not be discovered floating upside down in a local canal. Nevertheless, will the Leader of the House tell us when we will be able to debate the question of short speeches because that is a very important matter, and it might help him?

Mr. Wakeham: Far from anything nasty happening to my hon. Friend the Member for Weston-super-Mare (Mr. Wiggin), something very pleasant has happened to him. I have taken the speeches that he might have made if he had caught your eye, Mr. Speaker, from the middle of the night, when many people would not have heard them, and I have put them on in prime time instead. I do not see how he has the slightest ground for complaint.
I recognise that there is a need for a debate on the subject of short speeches, but I am afraid that it is not possible to take the matter correctly very late at night. There is limited time before Whitsun, but I hope to deal with the matter as soon as I can after Whitsun.

Mr. Greville Janner: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Home Secretary has announced that he is not prepared to provide any extra policemen for the county of Leicestershire—

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Janner: But—

Mr. Speaker: No. That has nothing to do with the change of business.

Mr. Janner: Surely—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must not argue with the Chair. This is a business statement dealing with the change in tomorrow's business.

Scottish Bus Group

The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Malcolm Rifkind): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a statement about the future of the Scottish Bus Group.
I told the House on 27 January that I had decided to seek powers at an early opportunity to privatise the Scottish Bus Group. I said that I was considering whether the group should be privatised as a single company or as several companies. In order to reach a decision on this matter, I appointed the Scottish merchant bank, Quayle Munro, to advise me. In the light of that advice, I have decided that the Scottish Bus Group should be privatised in about 10 units.
In reaching this decision, I have considered carefully the views of the board of the Scottish Transport Group and of its financial advisers. I have also met the chairman and the vice-chairman of the group. The board of the Scottish Transport Group is in favour of privatisation of the Scottish Bus Group, but as a single unit. However, I consider that, with 3,000 buses and providing more than half the local bus mileage in Scotland, the bus group would be too dominant to allow for fair competition with other bus companies. I have decided that my objective of introducing greater competition into the Scottish bus market would be better achieved by privatising the bus group by the method that I have suggested.
There are other important reasons for deciding to privatise the group in a number of companies. Locally based companies will be more sensitive to local needs. Management will be freer to respond to local demand on the basis of local knowledge. I am sure that employees will find it easier to identify with smaller locally based companies. An important objective of privatisation will be to give a substantial boost to enterprise in Scotland by the creation of new Scottish-based private sector companies. I hope that part of this process will be an increase in Scottish employee participation. The work force has already made it clear that it is keen to take a stake in its industry.
The detailed pattern of privatisation will be worked out in consultation with the board of the Scottish Transport Group when the companies are being prepared for sale. However, privatisation will be, broadly speaking, on the basis of the present subsidiaries, probably with a combination of pairs of subsidiaries north and south of Glasgow and adjacent to Edinburgh to provide for even competition with the public transport companies—that is, the former municipal operations.
We have already seen the benefits of competition following deregulation. There are new and innovative services. Operators have adapted to demand. Further competition will benefit the customer. What I propose will strike a balance between increased competition and stability of services. The privatised companies will be substantial bus operators with the capacity to thrive in the deregulated environment alongside the growing independent operators. They will be a valuable addition to the private sector in Scotland.

Mr. Donald Dewar: Few people would agree with the right hon. and learned Gentleman about the benefits of deregulation. It has brought wasteful competition in already congested areas,

where provision was always adequate; poorer service in many outlying areas; and fares that have risen substantially faster than the rate of inflation. There is in the right hon. and learned Gentleman's statement a remarkable lack of detail, although many people will be disappointed by the decision that there should be fragmentation rather than the selling of the entire Scottish Bus Group.
I shall ask the right hon. and learned Gentleman a number of specific questions. He says that there will be about 10 units. Will they all be operating bus routes? I ask that because there is no mention of SMT Insurance, Sanderson Travel or, indeed, the Scottish Bus Group Engineering business, which is of importance. I would like the right hon. and learned Gentleman to be more specific as to what will happen to them and whether the 10 units will be operational in the way I have described.
Secondly, the right hon. and learned Gentleman puts great stress on new Scottish-based private sector companies. Will he tell the House how he intends to ensure that, when this happens, there will be Scottish ownership or Scottish control? All the evidence of the English experience shows that there will be bids from south of the border and, indeed, perhaps from abroad. What protection will be offered during the break-up and during the subsequent period? As the right hon. and learned Gentleman will remember, in England there were about 70 companies at the time of deregulation. There are now 11 dominant companies, many of which have been put together by consortia, which have recreated operations that the Government deliberately split up at the time of deregulation. What will be in the Bill to prevent that happening in Scotland?
The right hon. and learned Gentleman puts particular emphasis on scale. For example, would Stagecoach, which already has about 900 buses in operation and is made up of four English companies, and widespread of Scottish operations, be able to buy one, two or more of these new fragmented parts of the Scottish Bus Group? If Front Source, perhaps in a joint venture with Icarus or some other big international group, bought the Scottish Bus Group Engineering business, what would be the result in terms of competition?
Perhaps the right hon. and learned Gentleman could say a word or two about the key to the scheme. The key is the criterion on which bids will be assessed. Will it simply be the price offered, or will competition, service cover for the travelling public, safety standards and employee participation be taken into account?
What effect will there be on the four former municipal undertakings? Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman rule out—as I hope he does—any further restructuring of those?
Finally, there is a startling silence on the fate of Caledonian MacBrayne. Is it to be sold? Is it going out to management tender, as rumour has suggested? After all, it is a vital lifeline to the islands. It inevitably needs and deserves substantial public support. It seems to me, and I am sure to my hon. Friends, to be an unhappy and inappropriate candidate for privatisation and the so-called discipline of the profit motive. Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman tell us his intentions for Caledonian MacBrayne?
We shall look critically at the legislation. Perhaps the Secretary of State will confirm that there will be legislation before the sale of this major public undertaking, with a


turnover of over £180 million and 11,000 employees. When can we expect the Bill to come to the House? What is his estimate of the windfall profit to the Treasury of this asset-stripping exercise?

Mr. Rifkind: The hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) began with some uncomplimentary comments about the effects of deregulation. His comments added up to assertions without any evidence. I shall now supply him with some of the evidence. Since deregulation was introduced, although subsidies for buses have been reduced from £27 million to £15 million to the benefit of the taxpayer and ratepayer, up to May 1987 the actual vehicle mileage in Scotland had already increased by 4 per cent. In Scotland, there are 16 new operators providing services and the number of vehicle miles provided by independent operators has increased by 7 per cent. On those routes now subject to competition, there have been significant fare reductions and the overall effect has been highly beneficial to the travelling bus public.
Further, the hon. Gentleman asks whether the 10 units referred to included the engineering, insurance and other minor interests of the Scottish Bus Group. They do not. Those will be privatised, but will be in addition to the operational units that I primarily referred to.
On the question of ownership and control of the bus group after privatisation, I have said that we hope that management and employees of the group will—as evidence already suggests that they will—have a great interest in acquiring ownership of a significant number of those companies. If Opposition Members say that that is a pious hope, I ask them to look at what happened south of the border. Seventy-two companies were privatised out of the NBC, 38 were the result of a management or a management employee buy-out. That is something which will also be a feature in Scotland, and I am sure will be welcomed by Opposition Members. It is something that the employees of the Scottish Bus Group welcome and something on which they should be congratulated.
The hon. Member for Garscadden asked me about the municipal PTCs and the implications for them of the privatisation of the Scottish Bus Group. The hon. Gentleman is right to draw attention to the somewhat anomalous position that they find themselves in as a result of privatisation. It is important that we consider the future of the PTCs, but I have no statement to make at present. The hon. Gentleman is right to raise that matter, because there must be implications for them arising out of the privatisation of the Scottish Bus Group.
On the question of Cal Mac, I repeat the assurance that I gave previously. I am conscious of the lifeline to island services that Cal Mac represents. We are not yet in a position to say what the future will hold for Cal Mac. I assure the hon. Gentleman that, whatever structure is finally recommended to the House, it will be one that will guarantee the present quality of service that the islanders rightly enjoy.

Mr. Speaker: May I remind the House that we have a busy day ahead of us with Lords amendments? I ask the hon. Members who are rising, or will be called, to put single questions and not to repeat questions that have been asked.

Mr. Alick Buchanan-Smith: Since my right hon. and learned Friend is seeking to create a number of companies, and thereby creating local

opportunity, will he say whether help and assistance will be available to local management and work forces where there is interest in buying out those local undertakings? I understand that that was the case in England and Wales. Will my right hon. and learned Friend be more forthcoming in relation to the future of the local authority bus undertakings? In Lothian and Strathclyde, because of their size, those undertakings could pose a considerable threat to some of the companies that my right hon. and learned Friend is seeking to create. This point needs clarification.

Mr. Rifkind: With regard to the first question of my right hon. Friend the Member for Kincardine and Deeside (Mr. Buchanan-Smith), assistance was given in the form of help with advice and consultancy to management and employees in existing NBC activities, which in some cases enabled them to put forward successful bids for management or management employee buy-outs. We would wish to give at least comparable assistance to local management and work forces in Scotland.
My right hon. Friend is correct to say that the PTCs, particularly in Strathclyde and Lothian, are a substantial size. That is one of the considerations that led me to suggest that it might be appropriate for some combination of the existing subsidiaries of the SBG to be achieved so as to ensure effective competition between them and the PTCs in those localities.

Mr. Archy Kirkwood: In accepting that this privatisation is to take place, I say that there is some logic in the way that the Secretary of State is proposing to carry it out. However, first, I have a question about rural subsidies. Some of the units that he has said he will create will find it difficult to survive in a commercial free market.
Secondly, what protection will be given to the companies to ensure that predatory bids do not come from firth of Scotland?

Mr. Rifkind: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his general welcome of the structure that I am recommending to the House. Rural bus services will be in the same position as at present. Regional councils will be free, as at present, to provide a subsidy for any rural bus service in which interest was not expressed by the private sector. That is the present position and it will continue to be the case after the privatisation of the bus group.

Mr. Bill Walker: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that many of us are delighted that there will be a monopoly privatisation? Will he confirm that Stagecoach, which is based in my constituency, which has done so well for the private sector and buses and which has brought down prices on so many routes, will have an opportunity to participate in the privatisation programme?

Mr. Rifkind: I confirm that Stagecoach has played an active part and was successful in acquiring a number of companies of the privatised NBC. Like other companies, Stagecoach will be free to make known its interests in possible subsidiaries of the Scottish Bus Group. Obviously we shall have to wait to see the extent to which that company is successful in achieving control of any individual company. I have stated that, as a general


preference, we wish to encourage management and management-employee buy-outs but, as with NBC, there is likely to be a varied outcome in Scotland.

Mr. David Lambie: Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that most people in Scotland will be disappointed that he has replaced his right hon. Friend the Member for Ayr (Mr. Younger) who, while he was Secretary of State for Scotland, managed to protect the public sector Scottish Bus Group against attacks on it by the English Tory Government when they were privatising the public sector in Scotland?
In spite of the assurances that the Secretary of State has given that he does not yet have any plans to announce to the House about the future of Cal Mac, will he assure us that if Cal Mac is privatised it will not be privatised in the way in which he is privatising the Scottish Bus Group and be divided into 10 or so independent sectors, but that he will privatise it as a group because it depends on cross-subsidisation to make it efficient?

Mr. Rifkind: I repudiate the hon. Gentleman's initial remarks. He will be aware that the principle of privatisation has been welcomed by the Scottish Bus Group and by the Scottish Consumer Council and other organisations in Scotland.
On the hon. Gentleman's latter remarks, I accept that any future structure recommended for Cal Mac must take account of the fact that some substantial public subsidy element must remain because most, although by no means all, of the routes serviced by Cal Mac could not operate without a significant degree of public support.

Mr. Eric Forth (Mid-Worcestershire): Does my right hon. and learned Friend believe that the users, managers and employees of the Scottish Bus Group will respond with interest to the challenge before them, or does he think that they will be negative in their response and follow the monopolistic, conservative and traditional route that is followed by the Opposition in trying always to defend the inefficient status quo? Is my right hon. and learned Friend an optimist or a pessimist in that regard?

Mr. Rifkind: The evidence so far suggests a great degree of interest by the employees of the Scottish Bus Group in enjoying the opportunity to acquire either shares in or the ownership of their individual companies. I recollect, for example, that bus drivers at the Bannockburn depot dissociated themselves from statements that were alleged to have been made on behalf of the employees and said that they looked forward to acquiring a stake in the ownership of the industry in which they worked.

Mrs. Margaret Ewing: Given that there will be an extensive period of negotiation following the Secretary of State's statement today, will he assure us that there will be full discussions with local authorities, especially with Grampian regional council and Highland regional council because of their understanding of the needs of rural communities? Given that the statement referred specifically to Edinburgh and Glasgow, will the Secretary of State assure us that the twin northern capitals of Inverness and Aberdeen will be involved in all discussions?

Mr. Rifkind: I shall be happy to hear any views that those local authorities may wish to put to us. However,

most of the detailed discussion will be with the Scottish Bus Group about the details of individual subsidiaries and the form that the privatisation might take. I hope that the hon. Lady will agree that the decision to split the Scottish Bus Group into smaller units will ensure that the units serving, for example, the north-east of Scotland are likely to be more responsive to the needs of the north-east of Scotland than a single Scottish Bus Group with its headquarters elsewhere.

Mr. Roger King: I congratulate my right hon. and learned Friend on bringing the benefits of privatisation, which have been experienced in England, to the people of Scotland in terms of improved services for the passenger and more work for those who supply vehicles to the industry. Will he tell the House the time scale within which he will operate and say by what date the whole transaction will have been completed?

Mr. Rifkind: It is difficult to give an exact date, but we certainly anticipate the possibility of introducing legislation at an early moment. Thereafter there should be no major bar to an early disposal of the individual companies.

Mr. Alistair Darling: Is it not the case that the Secretary of State is offering no guarantees whatsoever that those small companies will not be snapped up by predators from outside Scotland or even by companies such as Stagecoach, which does not enjoy a good safety record? Is it not also the case that as no such guarantees are being offered regional councils might be well advised to think twice before continuing the subsidies that they currently give bus group companies if those companies are to be based outside Scotland?

Mr. Rifkind: The hon. Gentleman should make up his mind. In recent months regional councils have been attacking the Scottish Bus Group for what they claim to be unfair competition against them and Strathclyde region was critical of the Scottish Bus Group in Glasgow following deregulation. However, the hon. Gentleman is now claiming that they will be upset because we are ensuring that there will not be any unfair dominance by any one unit in the aftermath of the privatisation. The hon. Gentleman is a difficult customer to satisfy, irrespective of the policy that is put forward.

Mr. Kenneth Hind: I congratulate my right hon. and learned Friend on the action that he has taken. Will he take this opportunity to assure the people of Scotland that the experience of England has been that, where there is competition on routes, it is possible to run subsidised routes to meet social needs and that the overall provision has resulted in more and better bus services south of the border?

Mr. Rifkind: That is the experience not only of England, but of Scotland. It has been a substantial time since deregulation was introduced and, as I commented earlier, there is solid evidence in terms of the route mileage provided by the bus services and in the implications for fares that deregulation has been an almost uninterrupted benefit to the Scottish public.

Mr. David Marshall: The statement is deeply disappointing and worrying to bus passengers and bus workers in Scotland. What guarantee can the Secretary of State give to protect the wages and


conditions of employees in the bus industry? Why did he choose to refuse to accept the advice of the management of the Scottish Bus Group?

Mr. Rifkind: There is not the slightest evidence to suggest that the interests of employees are better served by publicly owned bus companies than by independent operators. There has been substantial growth among independent operators, thus providing better opportunities for their employees.
As to the reasons why we did not accept the advice of the Scottish Bus Group, the hon. Gentleman should acknowledge the fact that it is in the interests of the employees and the bus industry as a whole that there should not be a single dominant company with over half the bus route mileage in Scotland because that would be very much against the interests of the employees.

Mr. Calum Macdonald: Will the Secretary of State acknowledge that his failure yet again to say anything definite about the future of Caledonian MacBrayne will be greeted with dismay throughout the islands as will his failure to respond to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Cunninghame, South (Mr. Lambie) about keeping Caledonian MacBrayne as a single entity? Will he respond to information that I have received to the effect that if Caledonian MacBrayne were privatised it would not have access to the substantial amounts of EEC money to which it has access at the moment and that, therefore, the privatisation of Caledonian MacBrayne would be not only socially irresponsible but financially foolish?

Mr. Rifkind: If the hon. Gentleman was wishing to be entirely objective, he might have prefaced his remarks by recognising that this Government have given more additional support to Cal Mac during the past 10 years than at any previous time in the history of ferry services to his constituency. Therefore, the interests of the Government in the well-being of island services to the Western Isles can hardly be doubted. It is precisely because we wish to be sure that the quality of services to the Western Isles and to other island communities will be properly safeguarded by the structure that we eventually recommend to the House that it is taking longer than the hon. Gentleman might like for us to reach a conclusion. The hon. Gentleman should see that as a source of reassurance, not concern.

Mr. Dick Douglas: Would the Secretary of State care to be a little more forthcoming with the House about his economic and social strategy? Although it may be appropriate to divide the Scottish Bus Group into 10 sub-companies so that it may be digested by the financial markets, should we not consider Scotland as a whole, in economic and social terms, as a market for bus operations and to argue the case, in terms of safety, employee interests and customer satisfaction, in the face of private enterprise and various public authorities, for one integrated Scottish Bus Group, so as to have a countervailing power to preserve acceptable, publicly endorsed standards? Is not the Secretary of State running away from that in his statement?

Mr. Rifkind: There was no problem about whether the Scottish financial community could absorb a single privatisation of the Scottish Bus Group. After all, the Scottish Bus Group, even as a single unit, has some 3,000

buses and it would not have been beyond the wit of the financial community to absorb that as a single unit. I can therefore assure the hon. Gentleman that such a consideration did not lead to the recommendation that we are making to the House.
We were anxious to ensure a structure that was fair to bus operators throughout Scotland. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will appreciate that the creation of a single private sector bus company with over 40 per cent. of all the buses in Scotland and over 50 per cent. of the route mileage would have been grossly unfair to all the other operators, both in his constituency and elsewhere in Scotland.

Mr. John McAllion: The Secretary of State has argued in favour of privatisation as a means of devolving real power and control back to Scotland. Does he not realise that, in disposing of the Scottish Bus Group on a fragmented basis, he is opening up the way for cash-rich predators from outwith Scotland to pick off the individual Scottish Bus Group companies one by one and that, far from devolving control back to Scotland, he is really facilitating that control being passed out of Scotland and into England?

Mr. Rifkind: On the contrary, if I were to recommend the privatisation of a Scottish bus company, and that company was then taken over by an outside owner, ownership would automatically go elsewhere. The fact that there will be a number of companies makes that ultimate outcome that much less likely and, if each of those individual companies is healthy and viable, there is no reason why they should not continue to have deep roots in Scotland. I have suggested, for example, that employee and management buy-outs are likely to occur in Scotland, as they have south of the border. That is also a way of ensuring a continuing control within Scotland and, therefore, should be welcome to the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Richard Holt: May I—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. This is a United Kingdom Parliament.

Mr. Holt: May I remind my right hon. and learned Friend—perhaps this is one reason why Opposition Members are seeking to shout me down—of the experience in Cleveland since privatisation? The rate has been reduced by the best figure that we are able to obtain from £4 million to £1 million. That is the sum with which the ratepayers have had to subsidise the bus services. With privatisation, we now have a saving and better services for the people of Cleveland.

Mr. Rifkind: My hon. Friend need not worry about the reactions that his intervention has caused among Opposition Members. We have all noticed a multiplicity of Scottish Labour Members taking part in English debates on the community charge legislation and, therefore, my hon. Friend should feel quite confident.

Dr. John Reid: Does the Secretary of State realise that the irate comments by Opposition Members were due to the fact that the hon. Member for Langbaurgh (Mr. Holt) was commenting on and questioning a statement to which he did not have the courtesy to listen? As I sat through that statement, perhaps the Secretary of State will answer my question and that


asked earlier by my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Shettleston (Mr. Marshall) which he pointedly refused to answer. What guarantees will he give to the present employees of the Scottish Bus Group regarding their future conditions, wages and pensions? Is it not the case that he can and will give no such guarantees?

Mr. Rifkind: There are no guarantees that one can give to employees under the present nationalised Scottish Bus Group that one cannot give to them about the future. However, Opposition Members know perfectly well that, in every previous privatisation of any industry, the pensions of all employees have been properly protected. In each case, the Opposition have sought to scaremonger and claim that the pension rights of employees would be damaged as a result of privatisation. In every case, they have been found to be wrong in the aftermath, and the same will apply in this case.

Dr. Norman A. Godman: The Secretary of State referred to the Government's record in terms of subsidies given to Caledonian MacBrayne. In future, what assurance will there be that its successor, a privatised company, will continue to receive financial assistance from the state to meet the cost of new vessels? Is it not the case that the company will require several new vessels within the next 10 years?

Mr. Rifkind: Today's statement is not about Caledonian MacBrayne, but I have already stated, and repeated today, that the continuing requirement for Government funding for at least part of the activities of Caledonian MacBrayne has already been entirely accepted. In many cases, those ferry services to the island communities simply could not continue without significant Government funding. As we have recognised from the start, those services are a lifeline to the island communities, and I can assure the hon. Gentleman that whatever structure we eventually recommend will take into account that important consideration.

Mr. George Foulkes: As a Member representing a rural constituency, may I give the Secretary of State the evidence, which he obviously does not have, that deregulation is cutting services? Sunday services in my constituency have gone, as have late night services, and some services have gone completely from such places as Dailly, Dalmellington, New Cumnock and Rankinson. That is happening all over rural Scotland. How does he expect Strathclyde regional council to continue to subsidise and, indeed, to increase its subsidy for those vital rural lifelines when he is clawing back £80 million or more from its expenditure in the current year? How can it continue to subsidise those routes when this new piece of highway robbery goes through?

Mr. Rifkind: The hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that, if individual routes in his constituency have ceased to operate, that was because Strathclyde regional council declined to provide the subsidy required. That is a matter within the power of regional councils. Regional councils have found that, as a result of deregulation, vehicle mileage in Scotland has increased by 4 per cent. and the subsidies that they have decided to give to bus services in Scotland have gone down from £27 million to £15 million.

The hon. Gentleman might not like that, but, if he has any complaints about individual routes, he should address them to his local regional council.

Mr. Tom Clarke: The Secretary of State said earlier that he was looking for evidence. Perhaps I could invite him to my constituency when I should be delighted to meet him. I could take him to the splendid Alexander resource centre which is used by elderly and disabled people who have already experienced great difficulties as a result of deregulation. Their difficulties have not been eased because the Manpower Services Commission is withdrawing its funding from the dial-a-bus scheme. Before the Secretary of State made his statement, did he consult any organisations for disabled or elderly people, apart from the organisation that he appointed? Did he speak to anyone who genuinely represents consumers?

Mr. Rifkind: I look forward to meeting the hon. Gentleman whenever I visit his constituency.
Obviously my statement today was primarily concerned with the structure of the privatised industry and whether it would consist of only one company or several companies. The hon. Gentleman asked whether we had had the benefit of the views of anyone representing consumers. We did, because we had the benefit of the published views of the Scottish Consumer Council. In its submission, the council said:
A decision to sell the SBG as a single unit would send all the wrong messages and would reverse what growing confidence there is among the smaller independent operators. A privatised monopoly of this scale could seriously undermine competition in the Scottish bus industry.
I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will welcome the fact that we are following the advice of the Scottish Consumer Council.

Mr. John Home Robertson: We all know who appoints the Scottish Consumer Council.
This proposal to decimate the Scottish Bus Group has nothing to do with the interests of passengers or employees. It is another case of public asset-stripping. Is the Secretary of State aware that we reject his selective assertions about the benefits of deregulation? Will he take notice of the Scottish majority's opposition to the thinly veiled threat that he made about the future of municipal passenger transport companies? Can he offer any credible guarantee that the privatised companies will remain under recognisable local control? For instance, will there be any safeguards in the criteria for the sale of these undertakings, or is this just another charter for predators to cream off lucrative business while public authorities are left to protect essential but unprofitable routes by subsidy? Will the Secretary of State reply to my hon. Friend's question about the timing of legislation in connection with this announcement?

Mr. Rifkind: The timing of legislation is not primarily for me. I can certainly tell the House that we expect early legislation about the proposals that I have announced today. The hon. Gentleman seeks to discredit the views of the Scottish Consumer Council on the ground that it is appointed by the Government and at the same time the Opposition seek to draw support from the views of the Scottish Bus Group, the board of which is appointed by the Government. Both organisations fearlessly put forward their views, which were based on their own


convictions. The Scottish Consumer Council, which has not been hesitant about criticising the Government in other areas, has said that it unreservedly supports what the Government are seeking to do over the Scottish Bus Group.
The hon. Gentleman asked about the future control of individual companies in the bus group. Of course at this stage I cannot predict the degree of interest that there will be among the employees and the Scottish people about acquiring these companies. However, I do say—and the hon. Gentleman should welcome this—that on the precedents that we have available there is likely to be substantial management and employee interests. That will certainly be one way of ensuring that the individual companies retain their decision-making in Scotland.
Perhaps Scottish companies such as Stagecoach will also express considerable interest. Perhaps companies south of the border will also do so. This is a United Kingdom economy and, just as Scottish companies occasionally acquire companies south of the border, the reverse may also apply. We have said quite clearly that one of the purposes of privatisation is to provide an opportunity for the employees and the management of the Scottish companies to acquire the ownership of the companies in which they work. Whether they respond to that opportunity is clearly a matter for them. I hope that they will.

Mr. Home Robertson: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, arising out of the statement. You will have noticed that there was some protest when you called the hon. Member for Langbaurgh (Mr. Holt) to ask the Secretary of State for Scotland a question. You quite rightly asserted his right to ask questions of any Minister. Is it not a normal courtesy for an hon. Member to listen to a statement before putting a question about it?

Mr. Speaker: That is correct and I was in error. I am afraid that I had not noticed that.

STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &c.

Ordered,
That the Companies (Fees) Regulations 1988 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &amp;c.—[Mr. Dorrell.]

Vaccine Damage (Compensation Arrangements)

Dr. John Reid: I beg to move,
That leave he given to bring in a Bill to amend the Vaccine Damage Payments Act 1979 in order to facilitate arrangements for the assessment of compensation of victims of vaccine damage.
I want to draw to the attention of the House the injustices caused by the Vaccine Damage Payments Act 1979 which was introduced to compensate that minority of tragic victims who are adversely affected by vaccinations. It has manifestly failed to achieve that.
I also seek the support of the House for two amendments to the Act, which will, I hope, alleviate the suffering of many people, including some of my constituents. The Vaccine Damage Payments Act and the system of compensation were introduced on 9 May 1978 by the then Secretary of State for Social Services, now Lord Ennals. The aim of the Act was to compensate those who had suffered damage directly caused by one of the vaccines listed in the Act. The thinking behind the scheme was that vaccine damage was a special case since vaccination was carried out as a matter of public policy. However, the Act specified that a victim would have to be at least 80 per cent. damaged according to the scale used for assessing industrial injuries disablement.
As the Secretary of State said on 9 May 1978, this marked the recognition by both sides of the House of what a terrible personal tragedy vaccine damage is for the families involved. It was right, when all the legal principles had been studied, that the Government should accept some responsibility for helping these victims. These words must have filled the families involved, including a family in my constituency, with some relief in 1978. In many cases, the reality of 1988, 10 years later, is shattered hopes and inadequate assistance.
The signs were there in the prophetic remarks 10 years ago by my right hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ashley) who said that the £10,000 offered by the Government was a drop in the ocean
in respect of children who arc irretrievably damaged for life? … Will my right hon. Friend consider introducing a viable scheme for all vaccine-damaged children?".—[Official Report, 9 May 1978; Vol. 949, c. 977.]
Today, even though the Social Security Act 1985 has arbitrarily increased that lump sum to £20,000 in recognition of the general inadequacy, my right hon. Friend's demand is one that I repeat in the House today.
This is not, and should not be, a party issue. Since the introduction of the scheme, the Government, like their Labour predecessors, have refused to implement the recommendations of the Pearson Royal Commission, which I and many hon. Members feel would have been most welcome. I do not have time to discuss the many legal implications of the Pearson commission's report or the legal reasoning behind the scheme that it proposed. However, it is time to recognise that not only is the compensation of £10,000, which has been increased to £20,000, totally inadequate but that the standard of proof required is too high. In addition, to award payments only to those who are more than 80 per cent. damaged is arbitrary, unnecessary and grossly unjust.
I seek leave to introduce the Bill and commend to the House two recommendations about the Vaccine Damage Payments Act and the amendment thereof. First, I urge the House to recognise the inadequacy of the payment of £20,000 currently being offered under the Social Security Act 1985. I base my criticism on first-hand knowledge of the suffering of the family of one of my constituents. Mr. and Mrs. Whyte of Bell's Hill, Lanarkshire, have endured that suffering of a loved one, Mrs. Whyte, since as far back as 1960.
The award of £10,000 made for the loss of earnings of a professionally qualified woman and the consequent home conversions and essential provisions that are necessary for a disabled person meant that the small sum that the family was granted under the provisions of the 1978 Act justified the comments of my right hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South. He spoke about three years' average earnings in respect of children who are irretrievably damaged for life simply being too little. Such compensation was certainly too little for my constituent.
My constituent brought this to my attention with no hope whatever of retrospective payment, but merely so that those who suffer in future may not have to undergo the financial deprivation that she has had to suffer. To put the present £10,000 in perspective, I must explain that in 1978 it was accepted by the whole House that an independent actuary would have estimated compensation based on principles of strict liability for child damage to this extent to be not £10,000 but £115,000. If that figure were inflation-proofed, it would now be £250,000.
I realise the limitations of the Bill and simply ask the House to approve an increase in compensation from £20,000 to £50,000 when the proven damage as a result of vaccination is 80 per cent., with provision for review of that figure should further evidence of disability come to light. This is not too much to ask, as the financial burden on the Government would be small because of the relatively small number of claimants. Up to 8 November 1985, 812 applications for compensation had been granted. It is certainly not too much to ask, given that the Secretary of State for Social Services himself admitted at the time the "small sum" and "interim nature" of the awards.
I turn to the 80 per cent. rule. It is unjust and beside any logic, apart from the logic of saving money, to exclude all claimants who are less than 80 per cent. damaged. That rule leaves countless worthy claimants in a void, having to endure a lifetime of suffering because of an arbitrary and in some ways thoughtless ruling. Of the 2,321 claims disallowed up until November 1985, 692 were disallowed because the degree of directly caused disability was less than 80 per cent. Victims are faced with the bizarre situation that if they suffer 75 per cent. physical or mental damage caused by vaccination they can make no claim.
To deny a suffering victim any compensation on the ground that he or she is "only" 75 per cent. vaccine damaged is unacceptable and unjust. If there need be any illustration of that point it is the case of a small girl named Breege Cannon in the constituency of my hon. Friend the

Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Maxton), who sponsors and supports this Bill. She is paralysed for life as a result of a polio vaccination. The DHSS will not present her with a penny as she stands close to, but, tragically, on the wrong side of, the 80 per cent. rule.
I ask the Government to provide compensation commensurate with the extent of the vaccine damage sustained. That would mean that anyone who was 80 per cent. or more damaged would receive the full sum of £50,000 but those suffering less than 80 per cent. physical or mental disability would receive a proportionate amount. For example, those who are 50 per cent. damaged would receive £25,000, and so on. I am not satisfied that such a scheme would alleviate suffering completely but it would be a move towards a more just system, with scope for increasing provision in the future.
When a Committee of the whole House met on 15 February 1979 my right hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South, who has fought tirelessly on this issue, moved an amendment providing for a reduced level of payment where the degree of disablement was less than 80 per cent. but more than 20 per cent. He was refused on the now familiar grounds that such a provision would be "costly" and would cause "delay". It was also suggested at that time that the scheme was only an interim measure until something better came along. That was 10 years ago, but nothing better has come along. The cost would be wholly insignificant in terms of the numbers involved and in terms of the acute suffering it would alleviate. Victims and their families have been prepared to wait if it meant justice, as opposed to getting nothing.
Every Member of the House would fully support as a matter of public policy the widest possible encouragement of the protection of the present generation and future generations by vaccination. In a world in which scientific advance can often lead to a threat to life, vaccination has proved to be one of our most powerful weapons against crippling and killer diseases. However, it is a sad but verifiable fact that in that pursuit of the greater good a minority are afflicted. No financial gain can ever provide sufficient recompense for the mental or physical damage that they may sustain. But for their sake, as well as for the common good, we are all duty bound to ensure that those people are comforted and compensated as adequately as possible. In the absence of a full and wide-ranging scheme providing compensation for the vaccine damage, I ask the House to support the Bill and the provisions it contains.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Dr. John Reid, Mr. Sam Galbraith, Mr. John Maxton, Mr. Tom Clarke, Mr. Harry Barnes, Mr. Jimmy Dunnachie, Mr. John Hughes, Mr. Doug Henderson, Mr. Roger Stott, Mr. Rhodri Morgan and Mr. John McFall.

VACCINE DAMAGE (COMPENSATION ARRANGEMENTS)

Dr. John Reid accordingly presented a Bill to amend the Vaccine Damage Payments Act 1979 in order to facilitate arrangements for the assessment of compensation for victims of vaccine damage: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 8 July and to be printed. [Bill 170.]

Orders of the Day — Employment Bill

Lords amendments considered.

Mr. Gavin Strang: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Before we begin our debate I wish to refer to Lords amendment No. 52. You will recall that the Green Paper, and in our earlier deliberations Ministers, sought to justify clause 12 partly on the grounds that a loophole in the previous legislation had been demonstrated by the decision of the president of the National Union of Mineworkers to have his vote removed from him, as it were, by his executive. He subsequently secured re-election to the office of president by his membership. It was clearly in response to that—and this was almost admitted in another place—that the Government tabled amendment No. 52, which is aimed specifically at encompassing the position of the NUM president and certain other individual trade union leaders.
When the Government were challenged on the matter in another place, and when the Minister was asked whether amendment No. 52 had been drawn up to catch a particular class of trade union leaders in relation to their ages, Lord Trefgarne replied that that was so. He said in response to my noble Friend Lord Murray, a former general secretary of the TUC:
Off the cuff I cannot think of any reason why we should not."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 8 March 1988; Vol. 494, c. 613.]
If that is not evidence of hybridity, I do not know what is.
It is demeaning for this Chamber and for the legislative process that an amendment should be tabled, not to achieve greater accountability, but which is specifically aimed at catching particular Left-wing trade union leaders. If that is not hybridity, it is certainly an abuse of the legislative process.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): I am grateful to the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Strang) for giving notice of his intention to raise this matter. It has been carefully considered and Mr. Speaker is satisfied that the Lords amendment is so framed as to cover a class of persons, and not any individual within the class as defined. Therefore, there is no prima facie hybridity to which the Chair should draw the attention of the House.

Clause 1

RIGHT TO A BALLOT BEFORE INDUSTRIAL ACTION

Lords amendment: No. 1, in page 1, line 9, leave out from "endorsed" to end of line 15 and insert
any industrial action in which members of the union (including that member) are likely to be, or have been, induced by the union to take part or to continue to take part".

The Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. Norman Fowler): I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take the following Lords amendments: No. 2 and amendments (a) and (b) thereto: No. 3 and amendments

(a) and (b) thereto; No. 4; No. 5 and amendment (a) thereto; Nos. 6 and 7; No. 8 and amendment (b) thereto; Nos. 23, 27 and 54.

Mr. Fowler: The purpose of clause 1 is very simple. It is designed to safeguard the position of trade union members whose union refuses to consult them before calling on them to take industrial action. The 1984 Act made proper secret ballots of those involved a condition of a union's immunity against actions in tort. This enabled employers to restrain most official industrial action called without a ballot. We believe that union members should similarly have a right to restrain their union if they are subject to inducement to take action. That is what the clause is all about.
The clause was thoroughly considered in Committee, when much of the discussion focused on the precise forms of industrial action to be covered by the balloting requirement. We thought it important that the same ballot should be capable of satisfying clause 1 of the Bill and the 1984 Act. Therefore, clause 1 was initially based on the terms describing the torts that underpin the 1984 Act. The right that it gave to members applied where they were induced to break their contract of employment or interfere with their performance of it.
In Committee it was argued that there could be difficulties in applying those terms to some circumstances of working life. We would not want individual trade union members to be in difficulty over, or uncertain about, the scope of their rights. On consideration, therefore, we concluded that the new right should apply to any industrial action. "Industrial action" is a term that unions and their members recognise and use to describe some of their activities. It is the term used in one of the statutory questions that the 1984 Act requires a union to put to its members in a pre-strike ballot. A member who had no idea whether he was being asked to interfere with the performance of his contract could not, in my view, possibly fail to recognise a call to industrial action.
There can be little doubt in practice about the scope of clause 1 on this new basis, and I believe that the House should welcome the improvement in clarity. Nor does it represent a massive extension of the balloting requirement. We can debate how much industrial action lies beyond the kind of interference with contracts that may be lawfully induced, but that is the measure of the extension.
Even if the extension of the balloting requirement were larger, that would, I think, be justified by the position of the union member. An individual who takes part in any form of industrial action and is dismissed by his employer may be unable to claim unfair dismissal. That applies whether or not he has broken his contract of employment. The question is whether he should have the right to be properly consulted before running that risk, and we believe that he should.
Our amendments introduced in the Lords make for increased clarity and certainty, and also put the union member's rights to be consulted on the same basis as the risks that he runs in respect of dismissal. They do that by applying clause 1 to any official industrial action, rather than just to action that would involve breach of or interference with contracts.
It naturally follows that some adjustment is required to the statutory questions. Under the 1984 Act and clause 1 as originally drafted, the member voting in a pre-strike ballot is required to say whether he is prepared to take part


in a strike, or in industrial action, involving him in a breach of his contract of employment. It is clearly inappropriate when ballots are to be held for any form of industrial action. If clause 1 no longer refers to breach or interference, unions cannot properly be required to ask questions framed in those terms.
On the other hand, it is right that members should have a clear sense of the seriousness of the matter on which they are voting. That is why our amendments remove from the question the reference to breach of contract, but require the ballot paper to carry a statement in standard form that "If you take part in a strike or other industrial action you may he in breach of your contract of employment".
A number of Opposition amendments have been tabled and we shall listen carefully to what is said by the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Strang). Some of the amendments, in particular those to Lords amendments Nos. 2 and 3, would undermine the effectiveness of the clause and are undesirable for that reason. Some also have technical deficiencies.
There may be a genuine misunderstanding about the amendment to Lords amendment No. 8. I mentioned earlier the importance that we attach to the principle that a single ballot should be able to satisfy both clause 1 of the Bill and the 1984 Act. Some have assumed—and I understand the difficulty—that any extension of the liability in clause 1 must necessarily carry with it an equivalent extension of liability under the 1984 Act, and thus an equivalent extension of the rights of employers. That is not the case, and if it is the concern underlying the proposals to modify Lords amendment No. 8, I hope that I can satisfy the hon. Gentleman on that at least.
The Lords amendments represent a coherent package of improvements. They cannot be treated selectively, and any modification is liable to dislocate the interlocking provisions to which they apply. I believe that they will produce a clearer and simpler set of requirements that will effectively protect the right of union members in this important area, which is the purpose of clause 1.

Mr. Strang: The Secretary of State has rightly pointed out the importance of the clause and of the amendments that the Government moved in the other place. I believe that the amendments are of considerable importance. First, they change substantially the requirements of clause 1, and to that extent place more demands on trade unions. I would go so far as to suggest that, in one instance at least, the court may be required to make wholly unreasonable orders against the trade unions as a consequence of the amendments.
Secondly—this was to some extent implied by the right hon. Gentleman's latter remarks—the amendments make the clause less intelligible. It would be undesirable, when enacting legislation on such an important issue, to create circumstances in which, when a case went to court, neither the employer, the trade union nor anyone else could be confident of the likely outcome. The Bill's provisions are convoluted and complicated, to put it mildly.
As the right hon. Gentleman acknowledged, the importance of Lords amendment No. 1 is that it extends the definition of industrial action. Every imaginable type of industrial action, no matter how minor, will now be covered by clause 1. Anyone who is in any doubt about the

effect of the Government's approach to trade unions has only to look at some of the consequences that have already arisen in the courts.
For many Opposition Members it is a matter of shame that the National Union of Seamen, for example, in legitimately advancing the interests of its members, should find itself pilloried and its funds sequestered by the court. This would not happen to any other trade union in Europe taking similar action in defence of its members' interests. That is why all these changes, and the further change to extend the scope of the Bill and thus reduce the opportunity for legal trade unionism, are against the interests of not only working people but the democratic tradition of this country.
As the right hon. Gentleman has reminded us, the purpose of clause 1 is to give an individual trade union member the right to go to court and insist on a ballot in advance of any industrial action. That extends, in a sense, the provisions of the 1984 Act whereby an employer, a customer, a supplier or some other individual or company affected by the action could go to court. The importance of that is that in practice we have found under the 1984 Act that when employers have gone to court to enforce a ballot—or for any other purpose—it has invariably meant that the trade union official is on the spot. I am talking not about a highly publicised national dispute, but about the hundreds of disputes that take place all the time but are never reported in the newspapers.
The trade union official is on the scene as soon as the employer goes to court. In a high proportion of cases the matter then becomes the subject of negotiation. The dispute is often resolved. In some instances there may be a decision to hold a ballot. Consequently, the employer no longer has an interest in pursuing the court case and therefore it is withdrawn. We do not know how frequently the measure will be invoked and how many cases will arise, because a dissident trade unionist—to whom the measure is addressed—does not have the same interest in the company. If the action is withdrawn, he does not have the same vested interest as the employer in maintaining production, or a similar concern to that of the employer about the economic consequences of industrial action.
We could be opening a Pandora's box. A considerable number of employers may find that individual trade unionists take their trade unions to court on the basis of clause 1, thus causing considerable problems which both the trade union and the employer would prefer to do without.
5 pm
The Secretary of State acknowledged that Lords amendment No. 1 extends the definition of industrial action. I shall not repeat what was said in Committee, but we thought that the initial extension from the Green Paper was unfair. The Green Paper was quite clear. When they consulted trade unions, employers and others, the Government asked:
Whether it is right in principle that trade unionists should invariably and automatically have a duty to their members not to authorise or endorse industrial action involving breaches of contracts of employment without first conducting a secret ballot of those due to take part in the action and obtaining a majority agreement to authorisation or endorsement.
The important words are:
industrial action involving breaches of contracts of employment.


The Bill went beyond that and referred to interference with the implementation, the operation and the performance of a contract of employment. We were very critical of that in Committee. We now find that the Government have decided to go even further and include the slightest action—perhaps even a think strike. Some discussion was introduced in the other place by Lord Wedderburn on the so-called think strike, which years ago one would have described as a very moderate form of work to rule. I believe that confusion will arise in the minds of trade unionists and others over whether even the most trivial action could constitute industrial action and therefore could be the subject of litigation.

Mr. David Winnick: Short of actually banning strikes—which is what the Government have done at GCHQ—does my hon. Friend agree that the Government are now making it as difficult as possible in law for unions to take strike action and other forms of industrial action when they consider it legitimate? Is it not ironic that at the very time when perhaps there is a chance that trade unions will have legitimate rights in eastern Europe the Tory Government are doing their utmost to undermine and erode the rights that have been built up over centuries in this country?

Mr. Strang: I agree that the Government have gone too far. That is the view, not only of Opposition Members, but of many enlightened heads of industry and others in response to the new provisions encompassed in the Bill. I believe that the British tradition encompasses basic human rights and the rights for legitimate, legal trade unionism.
Not only have the Government extended the definition of industrial action, but Lords amendment No. 2 specifies that when an individual trade unionist takes the union to court because there has not been a ballot, perhaps because of some very minor form of industrial action for work to rule, the court will have no alternative but to instruct the trade union not only to withdraw the endorsement or the inducement to take such action, but to act as the policeman of the employer. That is a monstrous requirement.
The amendment uses the word "conduct". It requires the union
to take steps … for ensuring that there is no, or no further, inducement of members of the union to take part or to continue to take part in that action and that no such member engages in any conduct after the making of the order by virtue of having been induced before the making of the order".
That is an enormously draconian requirement.
It will not be sufficient for a shop steward or trade union official to say to union members, "We have been instructed by the court that we must have a ballot; therefore, we are instructing you to withdraw from any action until we have had that ballot." He will be required to ensure that conduct complies with that. That is asking the trade union shop steward to act as a police person on behalf of the employer. It is ironic that in a Bill that makes it illegal for trade unions, even in the most modest and moderate way, to discipline trade unionists who refuse to strike after a properly organised ballot and a democratic decision the Government are requiring trade unions to discipline their members for taking the most modest form of industrial action.
Nothing better illustrates the lack of even-handedness, to put it mildly, in the Government's approach to industrial relations than the fact that, having denied trade

unions the right to discipline members who refuse to strike after a proper majority decision, they have the effrontery to require them to discipline members who may be taking some modest form of industrial action or working to rule.
It is not surprising that we are disturbed about the Government's approach in the Bill and, in particular, in the Lords amendments to it. Lords amendments Nos. 1 and 2 are enormously important, as I have already made clear. Lords amendment No. 3 is also important. We have tabled amendments which seek to reduce the onerous nature of the new requirements posed in the House of Lords and to modify Lords amendment No. 3.
The Employment Act 1982 provides five categories of authorisation of what constitutes endorsement of industrial action by trade unions. It lists: the principal executive committees, any person empowered under the rules to authorise or endorse acts of the kind in question, the president or general secretary, any employed official, or any committee of the union to which the employed official regularly reports. We seek to make clear what constitutes a proper authorisation or endorsement of industrial action in that context.
Lords amendment No. 5 applies when industrial action consists of a strike, lesser action or both. It lays down that a union must hold a ballot on strike action if there is an intention to have a strike or some lesser form of industrial action, such as a work to rule. The union must have a separate ballot for that action.
When it comes to seeking authority for either a strike or some lesser form of industrial action, the amendment requires the union to ballot on the basis of the action that it thinks is most likely. Clearly that is an attempt to make selective action more difficult Certainly that seems to be the Government's motive. Under our amendment, where both strike and lesser action are being considered, only one vote, on strike action, which would cover lesser action, would be necessary.
The Secretary of State referred to our amendment (b) to Lords amendment No. 8, and I am grateful for his remarks. The point to which he referred caused confusion outside the House and in the other place. Without taking up the time of the House, I simply point out that Lords amendment No. 8 seeks to extend the definition of industrial action, which definition we believe is wholly unreasonable. The Government have sought to justify that on the ground that an individual may be dismissed for action less than strike action—as evidenced in the Faust case, which was referred to repeatedly in the other place. That is not a justification for making this amendment so broad—far from it. To use the word loosely will introduce confusion into minor forms of work to rule or industrial action.
Having made this great case to show why it is unsatisfactory to define industrial action as action that constitutes a breach of an individual's contract of employment—indeed, that it goes beyond the intentions outlined in the Green Paper and in the initial Bill—and having said that we cannot rely on either definition of "industrial action"—either a breach of a contract of employment or interference with the performance of one's contract—it is ironic that Lords amendment No. 54 lays down a requirement that when a ballot is carried out preceding industrial action the ballot paper must state:
If you take part in a strike or other industrial action, you may be in breach of your contract of employment.


Having explained why a breach of contract of employment is an inadequate definition of "industrial action", and having gone on at great length, particularly in Committee, to justify this further extension of the meaning of "industrial action", it is ironic that the Government should nevertheless make it a statutory requirement that the ballot paper must state that one may be in breach of one's contract of employment.
There are other amendments relating to the new definition of "industrial action". A strike is now defined as a "concerted stoppage of work". I should be interested to know whether this is the first time that a strike has been defined in this way. It seems a bald definition of a strike. The phrase "industrial action" is used in the definition of "industrial action" as it is defined in Lords amendment No. 8. It means:
any strike or other industrial action by persons employed under contracts of employment.
The definition seems to be tautologous.
Not only do the clause and the amendments constitute a further unfair movement against trade unions, but, to some extent, they encourage anarchy by encouraging dissident trade unionists to take their trade union to court. That is the great theme of the Bill and we shall come to it repeatedly this evening. Through the commissioner for the rights of trade union members, and all the other inducements that the Government are providing, dissident trade unionists are being encouraged to take action against their union to disrupt trade unions' bona fide activities.
The idea that trade union members do not have a full opportunity within these democratic organisations to argue their case and, if necessary, to protect themselves by going to court has never been argued persuasively throughout our proceedings, yet we are following this road. It is one which not only the trade unions, but some employers, will come to regret and, indeed, some have already made it clear that they do.
The complexity of these provisions means that there will probably be a great deal more litigation. It will be costly, will waste time and will certainly do nothing to promote better industrial relations.

Mr. David Evennett: As one who served on the Committee of this Bill and as a former trade union member, I should like to make a couple of comments.
The hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Strang) is wrong in his interpretation of the Lords amendments. He has forgotten the basic principle on which the Bill was presented, not only in the general election manifesto, on which we fought and won the election, but in our debates on the Floor and in Committee. The Bill seeks to extend democracy within trade unions and its aim is clear and simple. Nobody on the Government Benches is saying that there is no democracy within trade unions. Some are extremely democratic and we commend the principles and procedures that they use in their affairs. But in many areas democracy is lacking, or needs to be extended. The Bill was introduced to extend democracy so that trade union members have more say in the running of their union.
I welcome my right hon. Friend's comments. He accepted the Lords amendments because they improve clause 1 and clarify the intentions behind it. I am no lawyer

and we have sat for many hours in Committee listening to legal interpretations, but when we are told that the original intention is not as clear-cut as it should be obviously we must go further and include amendments which will introduce clarity.
We want secret ballots, and we want members to have more opportunity to participate in their trade union. We want the legal side to be tight on union affairs. We do not want a legal nightmare, but we want ordinary trade union members to know what the union has to do, what their rights are and how they can exercise those rights. These amendments seek to tighten and clarify the original intention behind the clause. This is not a matter of principle, as the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East has sought to depict. We discussed the principles behind the Bill at great length in Committee. This afternoon the important and overriding consideration is to ensure that the original intention behind the clause is carried through. For that reason, the Lords amendments should be supported.

Mr. Michael Foot: When this Bill left the House of Commons all of us on the Opposition side of the House thought it one of the most wretched and squalid measures that had ever been passed through the House. It was a Bill actuated by malice which had failed to state in legal form even the purposes that the Government had in mind. There was everything to be said against it. For all those, and a variety of other reasons, which were stated during the passage of the Bill, none of us could have believed that it would come back from the other place even worse than when it was sent there. But that is the conclusion we must reach when examining the Bill now.
What is especially scandalous, or especially illustrative, to use the mildest possible word, is that a debate on this subject should be taking place today, following the antics of the House of Lords yesterday. The contrast is one that I feel sure people in this country will note. I certainly think that we should note that contrast when we are asked by the Government to support this measure.
The Bill has been in the House of Lords for weeks and months and noble Lords have had lengthy discussions about it. Right from the beginning, when the Bill was sent there, the Government introduced some of these new clauses, as they say, to clarify the situation. However, they are making it even more difficult for the unions to operate, as I shall illustrate.
The House of Lords has been working away over the past three or four months to make the Bill even more difficult for the unions, even more vicious than it was when it left the House of Commons. Yet yesterday in the other place there was a great demonstration. We were told that there would be no interference whatsoever with the poll tax measure that was sent up there in another Bill. Lord Hailsham, in one of those extraordinary exhibitions that we used to see in this House, told the other place yesterday that if a single finger was laid upon this precious poll tax Bill the very foundations of parliamentary democracy would be undermined. If anybody thinks that I am exaggerating, I advise him to read what Lord Hailsham had to say.
I have always looked upon the noble Lord as the most charming schizophrenic in British public life. At one moment he can be charm itself. The next moment he is using, as he was in the House of Lords yesterday, all the


most contrived and labyrinthine legal arguments to sustain the most absurd and dangerous position of the Conservative party.
This same Lord Hailsham used to tell us that there was an elective dictatorship when a much more liberal regime was being operated than anything that he was prepared to stomach for many years on end when he was Lord Chancellor. Yesterday, the day before this Bill was due to come hack to the House of Commons for us to examine in detail, he was telling the House of Lords that it would be absolutely scandalous for a single alteration to be made in the poll tax arrangements. Of course, most other peers who applied their minds to the problem were easily able to refute his argument, but that was no good in the end. I dare say—this is a harsh thing to say about noble Lords, but we are entitled to say it none the less—there may even have been a few who were persuaded by the ex-Lord Chancellor's argument that they were not entitled to make a particle of a change in the poll tax measure.
Now look at this measure. It is such a contrast. The same House of Lords, which is not entitled to change the poll tax measure in any degree whatsoever, has looked at this measure in detail. It saw how it could tighten the screws to make it more difficult for trades unions to operate. In my opinion, the conjunction of these two events—the passage of a measure like this and the rejection of any attempt to alter the poll tax Bill, with all its unpopularity up and down the country, which is shown by every kind of evidence—will be very dangerous for the Government. Nobody will worry very much about that, but it will be dangerous for the kind of constitution that hon. Gentlemen seek to protect.
For the House of Lords to behave in this way—spending months grinding away to get through a measure that could inflict such damage on the trade union movement, yet in a single afternoon saying that it will not interfere with poll tax, mobilising the backwoodsmen who have not been near the place for months and will not be seen there for months until there is an equal crisis—is very damaging for its future. The House has shown by this combination of events that it is quite unfit to play any part in a democratic constitution. I hope that that combination of actions will reinforce our determination to remove the old contraption at the other end of the passage. We need the space. At any rate, we might even get some decent office buildings for my hon. Friend the Member for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone). I have always had my eye on that office building over there. I hope to live to see the day when we take it over and turn it to proper uses, to serve democracy in this country.
I am serious about my main proposition. The people of this country will not be able to understand how those who have not been elected democratically can be mobilised to say that the poll tax measure will go through unchanged, yet can send hack this series of vicious measures, which will be forced through if the Government use their majority here.

Mr. Edward Leigh: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for giving way. Has he not reduced what Lord Hailsham said? Were not Lord Hailsham and Lord Whitelaw both making the same point, that the House of Lords has built up its reputation in recent years by revising legislation? The amendment to

the community charge measure yesterday went to the heart of the matter. With regard to this Bill, the House of Lords has simply revised it.

Mr. Foot: I shall come to the revisions in a moment. Of course these changes are revisions, but many members of the House of Lords were arguing yesterday that the proposal for the poll tax was a revision. So confident were the Government, which the hon. Member for Gainsborough and Horncastle (Mr. Leigh) occasionally supports, that their argument was overwhelming that they mobilised all these peers, who have not listened to an argument for 12 months or more. So confident were the Government that they would win that vote that I do not think we should take the hon. Gentleman's remarks too seriously.
I notice that the Secretary of State has left the Chamber. He should stay here to listen, but I dare say that is an example of the new manners in the Department of Employment. The right hon. Gentleman might have another appointment, but he is responsible for these Lords amendments. I am not holding that against the Minister who might reply to the debate.
The Secretary of State claimed, in his opening remarks, that the Bill has been made much clearer. However, he has not answered any of the questions put by my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Strang). Let him take note of what was said when the new clauses were produced in the House of Lords. There are peers who know the detail of the matter. Probably the two greatest experts on the subject in the country, as I am sure those in the House of Lords will testify, are Lord Wedderburn of Charlton and Lord McCarthy. They have subjected the Bill and these proposals to detailed examination. It is no good some "junior" Patronage Secretary on the other side of the House sniggering away as if it does not matter what is said by Lord Wedderburn and others on these matters. When I read out to the hon. Member for Staffordshire, South-East (Mr. Lightbown) what the noble Lords have said, perhaps he will take the matter a little more seriously.

Mr. Winnick: My right hon. Friend has referred to the "junior" Patronage Secretary. That Whip has made it perfectly clear that he would rather close his factories than allow trades unions to operate there.

Mr. Foot: The hon. Gentleman is trying to see that the same sort of trade unionism that he operates in his factory also operates up and down the country.
5.30 pm
Let us see what was said about the clarity of the new proposals. My hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, East has already explained the general context in which they were put, but let us look at what Lord Wedderburn said. I shall not read the whole speech, but he put a series of questions to the Minister about what other judges might say about the obscure clauses. Those clauses were already obscure but, as my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, East said, they are more obscure now than they were in the first place. That is not only his opinion but the opinion of Lord Wedderburn and others. Lord Wedderburn said:
There is a similar situation with other forms. As the noble Lord Lord Donaldson said in one of his judgments many years ago, the forms of industrial action, like real life, are infinite or are only bounded by human ingenuity, which is almost the same thing. Is the High Court to be asked to make


orders to abstain from all the types and varieties of conduct which may have been likely to be ineffectively induced by the statements made?
The answer we heard from the Secretary of State today at the beginning of his remarks is that it is.
Lord Wedderburn went on to say:
That is a first shot at understanding what the clauses mean. However, we know they mean one thing. A court is to tell a union to do something to its members. That is another example of what Lord Devlin called, in his well-known inquiry into the port industry in 1965, asking trade union leaders to be policemen. He said then that trade union leaders cannot be asked to be policemen and they cannot be called in by employers to enforce the law. The mechanism which is now being set up makes that mistake all over again. Perhaps one might say that at the very best that will produce unofficial actions and a rash of actions for which one has no officials to bring in for negotiations and to conclude an agreement.
That is how the proposals will work in practice.
Lord Wedderburn went on:
The fragile Meccano set which was put together in the first Bill that we saw in the debate on Second Reading"—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am reluctant to interrupt the right hon. Gentleman, but he will know that it is contrary to our practice to quote directly from debates in the other place except when quoting a Minister. If the right hon. Gentleman is quoting indirectly and reflecting the views of a Member of the other place, that might be admissible.

Mr. Foot: I am grateful for your assistance, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I have quoted somewhat extensively and I apologise for that. However, I did not wish to miss anything and I am sure that the House would not wish me to do so. I shall paraphrase now because that is a good rule. We have that rule in order to protect the House from boring reiteration. I do not think that anybody would accuse me of boring reiteration in having brought to the attention of the House what was said by Lord Wedderburn. He was saying that the fragile Meccano set—the original Bill introduced in the House of Lords—had fallen apart and he said that the Government were attempting to
stick on some Lego that makes no contact with the machinery or in many ways with real life. I know that we shall not agree on that conclusion but I ask the Minister to answer some of the specific questions that I have raised".—[Official Report, House of Lords, 7 March 1988; Vol. 494, c. 435–36.]
Of course, none of those specific questions was answered.
The complications for trade union action were to be made even greater, and other provisions were to be piled on top of all the other iniquitous parts of the Bill. The Bill sets up a special commissioner to encourage people to take action against their trade unions. On top of the other provisions designed to make it more difficult for a trade union to take effective collective action is to be piled a special incitement for members to take legal action against their own unions if they think they have a chance of winning. Of course, they have the encouragement of the commissioner to enable them to go ahead with that process.
If the Bill is workable in that way, it will make collective legal action by trade unions much more difficult. It will mean that many more trade unions will not know whether they are acting within the law. I do not know whether the Government believe that it is sensible to pass legislation that has that effect. A number of trade unionists up and

down the country—I understand their feelings—will say that the Government have acted in an outrageous, scandalous and prejudiced way when dealing with their affairs and they will be happy to take illegal action. There are large numbers of people in the trade union movement who might be persuaded to move in that direction. They can recall that under old and oppressive trade union legislation before Disraeli introduced his measures for trade unions or before the Trade Disputes Act 1906 trade unionists, including the Tolpuddle Martyrs, said, "We have to take action even though it is illegal."
The purpose of the trade union reforms that were carried through was to ensure that the trade union movement would be able to operate effectively and use its collective power within the law. Anyone who wants to see the law sustained and respected in this country should be careful not to introduce legislation that will make it infinitely more difficult for elected trade union leaders, elected under the complicated procedures that the Government are instituting, to act. We shall be dealing with that part of this prejudiced legislation in a moment.
A Government with any sense, remembering the history of the trade unions in Britain, should be seeking by their legislation to make absolutely clear what is legal and what is not. They should be seeking to make clear what a trade union can or cannot do and to make it clear that trade unions must have the right to take effective collective action sometimes. If that right is denied, as my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, East said, we shall soon reach the position where every trade union in the land is under some form of GCHQ ban. That is what some members of the Government would like.
The trade unions of Britain will not be prepared to take that. Before 1906, or the wisdom of Disraeli, people were forced to take illegal action. That is what will happen if the Government go ahead with this sort of measure. Even at this late date, I plead with them to take away this measure. Of course, they will not because they are determined to force through measures that will be deeply injurious to the trade union movement. They believe that the trade union movement is down and they intend to kick it. That is what happened after the general strike of 1926–27. The Government said, "We will use our present position to take away, by powers in the House of Commons, rights that trade unions have had for decades." That has been carried to an even greater extreme by the Government than anyone could have imagined. Of course, there will be a deep and bitter response throughout the country. The day will come when all these measures will be wiped away. I only hope that it happens without any of the stress and struggle that people have had to endure in the past.
If there is trouble, the responsibility will rest upon the Ministers who, not content with the wretched measures of the first two or three years of this Government, have said that they will twist the screw even tighter. Even at this last moment they have come back with a Bill that is worse than that introduced in the House of Commons two or three months ago. It is a shame to see the House demeaning itself in the same way as the House of Lords did yesterday. I hope that the entire country will notice the contrast to which I have drawn attention.

Mr. Ron Leighton: When the Secretary of State introduced the amended clause he made it sound as if it were modest and innocuous. He is not here to listen to the debate, but he seemed to be saying that all


it was doing was to give to individual trade union members what employers already have. If that were so, there would at least be some logic in it and perhaps there would not be a need for too much discussion.
That is not what we have before us. We have before us a major change in the clause. The clause has been completely redrawn in a most unreasonable way and we have had no explanation why that has been done. Presumably the clause was all right when the Bill was before this House and in all the hours in Committee. Something must have happened to change the Government's mind. I should like an explanation of what has changed and why the Government are looking at this matter differently.
As my right hon. Friend the Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Foot) said, this change was made in the Lords. But it was not made, as far as I know, by what might be called rank and file Lords—if there are such things. It was made by the Government in the Lords. They used the Lords as a convenience. So we cannot blame the change on the Lords. We must ask the Government to explain why they have redrawn the clause.
The original clause provided:
A member of a trade union who claims that the union has, without the support of a ballot, authorised or endorsed … any … strike or other industrial action—
(a) to break their contracts of employment; or
(b) to interfere with the performance of their contracts of employment,
may apply to the court for an order under this section.
That has been completely changed to
any industrial action in which members of the union (including that member) are likely to be, or have been, induced by the union to take part".
What does "likely" mean? This is a new word that the Government have introduced. It is not a word that adds clarity; it seems to add a lot of confusion. Presumably it will be for the courts and the lawyers to decide. I should like an explanation of what the word "likely" means.
The Government propose to insert
that a trade union has, without the support of a ballot, authorised or endorsed any industrial action".
I do not know what that means. There are all kinds of industrial action—for example, action declining to do voluntary overtime, working to rule, working without enthusiasm. [Interruption.] Somebody refers to a "think strike". When I first looked at this clause I thought that perhaps the officials in the Department had been on a think strike and had not advised the Ministers properly. There may be a withdrawal of good will. People can stop doing work over and above the normal work that they are paid to do.

Mr. Graham Allen: There may be a slight difference of interpretation now that the Government have made their decision even clearer, but even in Committee it was apparent that this was the Government's intention. Nobody should be under the misapprehension that the Government have slipped into this approach. I do not know, Mr. Deputy Speaker, if it is in order to quote from the report of the Committee proceedings at this stage, but I asked the Minister—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. It would be in order in a speech, but I hope the hon. Gentleman realises that he is making an intervention, which should, by its nature, be brief.

Mr. Allen: I shall be very brief, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I asked the Minister for Employment:
Where overtime working is part of normal duties although not a contracted part, and it then ceases through industrial action, would that be caught by the Bill's extenion of the provisions over and above the 1984 Act?
He replied:
Yes, I believe that it is."—[Official Report, Standing Committee F, 12 November 1987; c. 7.]
That intervention occurred within three quarters of an hour of the Bill's going to Committee. The Government have intended this right from the word go.

Mr. Leighton: It is quite clear that there has been a major change in the clause; it has been completely redrawn. We had no explanation from the Secretary of State when he introduced it, because there is not a respectable or decent explanation why they have made this really major change. This is an entirely new Bill as a result of the changes in this clause.
5.45 pm
In amendment No. 8 there is a definition of a strike:
 'strike' means any concerted stoppage of work.
That is fairly clear. But when we try to find out what "any industrial action" means, it says:
 'industrial action' means any strike or other industrial action by persons employed under contracts of employment".
It does not mention breaching a contract of employment or interfering with the performance of a contract. So we do not know what is meant by "industrial action". The wording in this clause is a sort of catch-all that takes in everything. It seems to me that it would take in anything that an employer did not like.
I wonder whether that had anything to do with the experience of the teachers' strike. Collective bargaining has been taken away completely from the teaching profession. But let us consider a teacher who, after school hours, in his own time, organises sport. Let us suppose that that teacher is so upset by the Government that he decides that he has had enough and will not organise the cricket and football matches after hours. Is that the sort of action that the Government are trying to catch by referring to "any industrial action"?
If members of a union do what they are legally entitled to do—that is the point—why should this House impose certain procedures on them? Surely to attempt to do that is to go over the top, to go too far and act in a ridiculous way. If members of a union cannot join together to do things that are lawful, we are getting very close to being an authoritarian state where trade unionists will not have rights, will not be free and will certainly not know what their rights are, and we shall run into all sorts of uncertainties. This clause, as redrafted, introduces a very wide range of liability; indeed, unlimited liability. Its effect will be to harass ordinary trade unionists and frighten them away from meetings and from getting involved in trade union activity.
When strikes take place—they take place fairly infrequently; the idea that people spend most of their time on strike is nonsense—normally the situation will have deteriorated before hand. It could well be that members start to fret at what they see as oppressive management and their good will towards the management begins to diminish and they progressively withdraw good will. Are we to say that in all such cases there has to be a ballot?


That is absurd. How do we get to the point at which we cross the line between an ordinary withdrawal of good will and a situation in which a ballot has to be called?
As I understand the clause, if individuals take industrial action, that is all right. Even if shop stewards induce the industrial action, they cannot be proceeded against. I should like an explanation of that. I also understand that it is lawful to do these things if the members do not seek the support of a union official. I should like an explanation of that. It is certainly an incitement to unofficial action; it is all right provided it is unofficial.
The Government might be under the illusion that the trade union officials are the militants who induce industrial action. That is completely untrue. When I was working in industry for my union, the only body that could authorise industrial action was the executive council. Quite often when members wanted to take industrial action they would ask for permission, but the executive would turn them down. The idea that union officials seek to stir up strife and industrial action is the opposite of the truth. Without realising it, the Government are inciting unofficial action. If a union official wanted to cause strife, instead of calling the action himself he would privately talk to the shop stewards and get them to do it.
What does "likely" to induce mean? Let us suppose that teachers at one school decided to ban taking part in football and that teachers at another decided that they did not want to take part in dinner duties and that the union journal reported those events so that all the other teachers could read what their colleagues were doing. Would that constitute an inducement? At the end of the day, I suppose that it would be left to the courts to decide. The courts are empowered to make an order, but what sort of order can they make? If in a workshop members have withdrawn good will, is it possible for a court to order them to reinstate the good will?
The Bill seeks to prevent unions from acting as unions. The ethos of the Bill is against any idea of collective action. The Government have gone over the top. There was a time when we said that Governments were not for the employer or employee but were neutral. Their purpose was to hold the ring. The Government have gone completely overboard on one side, in favour not only of the employer but particularly of the rogue employer. They are against not only so-called irresponsible trade unionists but all trade unionists.
There was a time when the Conservative party said that it was not opposed to trade unionism. There was an organisation called Conservative Trade Unionists, and the Minister of State, Home Office was a leading official of it. I do not know whether he still is, whether it exists or whether the Conservative party believes in the legitimacy of collective action and British workers combining to look after their interests, but if they do they are undermining that belief by the Bill, which goes too far and will not endure. Legislation will not endure on such a prejudicial basis as this.

Mr. David Clelland: It appears that our arguments are falling on not only deaf ears but absent ones. The Secretary of State has decided to leave the Chamber, which does not leave much room for optimism

that our arguments will be listened to. I urge the Minister to listen carefully to the arguments and, even at this late stage, to reject the amendment.
If the amendment is passed it will cause serious problems not only for trade unions—which presumably is the intention—but for individuals, employers and the courts. The amendment is not a minor revision, as was suggested by the hon. Member for Gainsborough and Horncastle (Mr. Leigh), but a fundamental alteration to the original clause that was agreed by the House.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Foot) mentioned the inconsistencies of the House of Lords. It seems that legislation in this country depends to a significant extent on who turns up in the House of Lords on any given day. The casual passer-by yesterday could not help but notice the proliferation of Rolls-Royces and chauffeur-driven limousines outside the House of Lords as their Lordships voted themselves a reduction in their rates.
I notice that their Lordships have not chosen to make much comment about the proposal in the Bill that those utilising the facilities of clause 1 will be able to obtain legal aid by reference to the commissioner for the rights of trade union members. Hon. Members will recall that recently we considered the Legal Aid Bill, which originated in the other place. It proposes cuts of £10 million a year in legal aid so that the poorest fighting genuine cases will not be able to receive assistance, whereas people who wish to attack trade unionists will be able to rely on the support of the commissioner. Such is the nature of the attacks on free trade unionism in this country.
The amendments say that a member may apply to a court to have "any industrial action" stopped or prevented pending a ballot. If a union issues notice of a strike, an overtime ban or a work to rule, a member could exercise the clause as amended by their Lordships. A court of law, therefore, could tell members not to work to rules laid down by their employers. Yet the position in industry today—which seems to have escaped the notice of their Lordships—is that if an employee suffers an injury at work, all an employer has to do to avoid paying compensation is to show that the worker was not working to the rules. One court could say that working to rule is industrial action and should be discontinued, while another could say that a worker contributed to an accident by not working to the same rules. Are their Lordships and the Secretary of State suggesting that that should be possible under British law?
It is not only working to rule that might be caught by the amended clause. The amendment raises two fundamental questions. First, what is "any industrial action"? During the debate in the other place, Lord Trefgarne described any industrial action as that which is
designed to cause damage to the employer."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 7 March 1988; Vol. 494, c. 465.]
Lord Campbell of Alloway concluded that picketing was industrial action. That means, therefore, according to the noble Lord Campbell of Alloway, that if a trade union holds a legitimate ballot and has a strike, it must have a further ballot to picket the factory. How ridiculous can we get?
I hope that the Minister will comment on my second question. If a trade union, shop steward or a safety representative were to say to a worker, "Do not work under these conditions or use that machine or piece of equipment because it is unsafe", is that shop steward or safety representative the union in that instance, and is the


refusal to work in unsafe circumstances industrial action? It would appear from what their Lordships have said that that could be so.
Often there are disagreements between workers and their supervisors about what is safe. Sometimes that leads to a decision being made by a worker or group of workers not to carry out certain tasks or to work in a particular way. Indeed, workers are encouraged by the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 so to do. If they work in dangerous conditions, they are contributing to an accident if one happens.
Disputes on the shop floor often lead to discussion, negotiation and an eventual settlement, making for safer working conditions to the advantage of the employer and employee. There are people who will work in any conditions regardless of the risk—[HON. MEMBERS: "Sellafield."] Under the clause, if one of the group disagrees with the shop steward or safety representative a court could decide that the unsafe working practices should continue. The court would not be in a position to decide about the safety or otherwise of the working conditions. It could reach a decision only about the action being taken.
What happens if an accident occurs in those circumstances? What right will a victim have to compensation if the employer can argue that a court of law authorised the working conditions? That is surely a possibility if the amendment is passed. The court is given no discretion and must assume on every occasion that the action must be discontinued or prevented—that is, if it agrees with the complainant that the trade union has induced the action. That could lead to the court contributing to unsafe working practices and any subsequent accident. That is one good reason why the amendment should be rejected.
However, if the Minister tells us that a shop steward is not the union for the purposes of clause 1, the whole thing becomes nonsense. As my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-East (Mr. Leighton) has pointed out, unofficial action will escalate and the unions and the courts will not be able to do anything about it. The Minister will have to tell the House how that can possibly improve industrial relations in Britain.
There is little difference between the British Government and the totalitarian Government in Poland in their attitudes to trade unions. Their methods may be different, but their objectives are the same—to screw down the trade unions to prevent them from properly representing their members, to prevent them from improving their members' conditions and wages, and, most important of all, to prevent them from criticising or frustrating the Government's actions. In that respect, the Polish Government and the British Government have a lot in common.

6 pm

Mr. Winnick: The Bill is motivated by the deepest malice and prejudice against the trade union movement. To some extent, the Government's attitude was illustrated in January 1984 when, for the first time, British citizens were denied the right to belong to a trade union, and that was at GCHQ. We believe, and shall continue to believe, that that is a denial of a basic freedom in a political

democracy, and we have made it clear that under a Labour Government that right will be restored to the employees of GCHQ.
My hon. Friend the Member for Tyne Bridge (Mr. Clelland) is right. The Government cannot ban strikes in general, although undoubtedly some Conservative Members would like to take that step. The hon. Member for Staffordshire, South-East (Mr. Lightbown), to whom I have already referred, has not denied that he would rather see his factory close down than allow trade unions in, as has been published in our local press. It may be argued that that is a point of view of one Conservative Member for Parliament and does not reflect the Government's attitude, but I maintain that many Conservative Members have precisely the same attitude. Their hatred—the word "hatred" is not an exaggeration—is so deep, so bitter, so much are they against the trade union movement, that they are willing to pass any legislation, however disturbing or offensive to the spirit of a political democracy.
The irony, memberconstituency I pointed out when I intervened, is simply that at this moment, when there is hope that trade unions in Eastern Europe will be able to be independent, that what happened in Poland can be reversed and that in Hungary reforms will give working people the right to strike without being punished or penalised, the Government are undermining rights that have been built up over the years in Britain, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Foot) pointed out.
I make no secret of the fact that I believe that the night to strike is fundamental to living in a free country. I do not believe for one moment—I speak as someone who has been an active member of a trade union for over 30 years—that people take strike action lightly. The amendment refers to "any industrial action". What is meant by that? Over 30 years ago, when I was a staff representative in my union, we decided to ban overtime. That action was not taken lightly. There was a dispute with the management over pay and we decided to take that action. It lasted less than a week and we got what we wanted. But under amendment No. 1, such action will not be allowed without a secret ballot.

Mr. Nicholas Bennett: What is wrong with that?

Mr. Winnick: All the procedures will have to he gone through, whether on overtime or anything else, which is quite outside strike action.
The Government are trying to make it as difficult as possible for working people, not just trade unions. to protect and improve their standards, in many cases against hostile management. They are trying to take away their rights or restrict them as much as possible. That is why clause 1 is even more offensive than other parts of the Bill.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Strang) said, trade unions are supposed to police their members when industrial action is taken. No doubt that will result in a number of court cases.
I agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Blaenau Gwent. I never had the slightest illusion that the Lords would amend the poll tax. I am not one of those who think that there is some sort of inbuilt liberal majority in the other place. The opposite is the case. Therefore, it does not surprise me in the least that when the Government wanted to make the Bill even more hostile and offensive towards trade unions they had no difficulty


in the other place. The majority of people who turn up in the other place would be willing to take any action against trade unions. They would be willing to ban them if the Government invited them to do so.
It is not much use today suggesting that Conservative Members should recognise the harm that will be done by amendment No. 1. I have no illusions that there will be any Conservative rebels. They will all be willing to troop into the Lobby in a few moments to vote for the amendment. In the main, we have a Tory intake in this Parliament, as in the previous one, which is completely hostile to trade unions.
It is interesting to note that on the poll tax and other measures there were at least one or two Conservative Members who expressed reservations on or opposition to what the Government were doing, but there has not been one voice of dissent from the Tory Benches on this matter. The explanation is that the House is dominated by a Tory majority which is malicious and hostile to the trade union movement. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Blaenau Gwent said, when there is a change of Government all this rubbish will go. There will be fresh legislation, much as the 1945 Parliament did away with the Trade Disputes and Trade Unions Act 1927.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: While my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) was speaking, a Tory Member asked what was wrong with a secret ballot. The truth is that in this place we do not have them. We have a system whereby we have a sort of field with a No Lobby at one side and an Aye Lobby at the other.

Mr. Graham Allen: A car park.

Mr. Skinner: Yes, it could be a car park. We have shop stewards on the entrance. Because many Members of Parliament are now taking industrial action and are not here, the shop stewards, otherwise called the Whips, stand on the gates outside and say, "Never mind whether this is a secret ballot. Get in here. This is our Lobby." Yet when it comes to trade unionists it is a different ball game altogether.

Mr. Nicholas Bennett: rose—

Mr. Skinner: Yes, it was the hon. Gentleman who made that comment. What does he want to say?

Mr. Bennett: The hon. Gentleman is mixing up his analogies. The majority of trade union members are like the electors. They are entitled to a secret ballot so that they are not intimidated in the way that they vote. We are elected Members, accountable to the electorate. We are like the shop stewards. How we vote should be clear to the public who elected us.

Mr. Skinner: Every day hon. Members get their names in Hansard if they turn up for work, just as those Members of the other place did yesterday. It is despicable to be talking about trade unions being hamstrung after yesterday's appalling spectacle when Members of the other place were driven here by chauffeurs, who waited in their cars outside. I stood watching them. Some of them did not stop the engine while their owners went in to vote. They nodded to the bobby, picked up their £100 a day tax-free, and voted in accordance with the shop stewards'

instructions—not in a secret ballot—to carry the poll tax Bill which, I am informed, will result in one of the Lords gaining £1,400. That is not a bad round journey from Northumberland.
Today, it is a different ball game. We are talking not about Members of the House of Lords—the place that should be closed down—but about the real wealth-creators in Britain. It is another spectacle this time. Members of the House of Lords have instructed us to tighten up the laws against workers in trade unions. That is why we oppose the Bill.
I know one of the reasons why those laws are likely to be tightened up. The Government are now talking about overheating in the economy. They are talking about wage increases of 8·5 per cent.—never mind the fact that Cabinet Ministers get 20 per cent. or 30 per cent. The Government are concerned about wages having increased by about 8 to 9 per cent. in the last financial year. The Secretary of State was rabbiting on about it the other day, although he has not yet got the guts to say what he wants to say, which is that he wants to introduce a wages policy. Without any question whatever, the Government—[HON. MEMBERS:"The hon. Gentleman supports that."] Supports what? [HON. MEMBERS: "A wages policy."] You must be joking. You were not here, were you? You must be wet behind the ears if you do not know—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman does not mean to say such things about me.

Mr. Skinner: As a matter of fact, I do, because you were a Minister in that Government, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and you voted for 10 per cent. and I voted against it. That is the truth of the matter and it is as well that these whippersnappers should know it.
The union laws are being tightened up in readiness for the wages policy. The Government will shade it in a different manner but one thing is certain: the Government are worried about the consequences of increases in the wages of ordinary workers. It is no accident that the Bill was tightened up in the Lords. It is no accident that the Government have accepted that tightening up. They know what will happen during the next two years. They know that a balance of payments deficit is looming larger than at any time in Britain's history. North sea oil receipts are gradually reducing—not dramatically but reducing nevertheless. The Government need to tighten up on workers and the Bill is part and parcel of that process.
Today in the courts there has been another despicable incident arising out of the Government's employment legislation. The judge refused to lift the sequestration of the National Union of Seamen's assets on the ground that he wants the mass picket at Dover removed. We are talking not about secondary picketing but about primary picketing. The judge, supported by the establishment and the Secretary of State, says that the picket must be reduced to six even though, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Foot) knows only too well, that is not the law of the land but only a code of practice. That shows how far we have travelled. The Government are hammering workers day in and day out. That is why it is important that all Opposition Members should remember when we march through the Lobby—not in a secret ballot—we are doing it not just for today but in the knowledge


that when we get a Labour Government we shall repeal all these obnoxious Tory laws which have hammered trade unions for the past eight and a half years.

Mr. Spencer Batiste: I wish to put right one or two of the Opposition's misconceptions—[Interruption.] I have been in the Chamber for some time. Hon. Members have referred to the future of Conservative Trade Unionists, its reaction to the Bill and its role. As its vice-president, I should like to put it clearly on record that CTU welcomes the Bill very strongly as a package. It does so because of the interesting contrast patent in the debate. Labour Members argue for a return to the industrial relations climate of the 1970s. Labour Members' interpretation of trade unionism is that union bosses can impose their will on the membership whether the members want it or not. Conservative Members, on the other hand, look forward to a future of industrial relations and trade unionism in which trade unions respond to their members' wishes.
Every time we make a proposal that enhances the role and power of individual members of the unions we hear from the Opposition the same whingeing appeals on behalf of trade union leaders that that proposal runs against trade unionism. It does not. If trade unionism is to have a place in a successful industrial economy, as Conservative Members believe it must, it must adapt itself to the changing economic circumstances of the world and the fact that most ordinary members do not want to go on strike and disrupt their earning prospects but want to contribute to generating wealth in their companies in which they can share. That is why so many millions of trade unionists vote Conservative.

Mr. Leighton: It is pleasant to know that we have a stalwart trade unionist from the CTU gracing our proceedings. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will explain whether the CTU wholeheartedly supports clause 3.

Mr. Batiste: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the Second Reading debate, in which I was asked precisely that question. I answered it then, as the hon. Gentleman would discover if he studied Hansard. [HON. MEMBERS: "Answer".] I have given the hon. Gentleman—

Hon. Members: Answer.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. We are not on clause 3; we are on Lords amendment No. 1.

Mr. Leighton: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I fear that the hon. Member for Elmet (Mr. Batiste) may be misleading the House. He has told us that an organisation, the Conservative Trade Unionists, fully supports the Bill—not the clause, the Bill. As I understand it from my diligent readings of Hansard, he explained that, like virtually everybody else in the country, the CTU opposes clause 3.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I knew that I would get into trouble for letting the debate run wider than I ought to have done.

Mr. Batiste: I shall not get drawn into discussing another clause, Mr. Deputy Speaker, except to say that CTU made its views perfectly clear and I dealt with them

on Second Reading. If the hon. Member for Newham, North-East (Mr. Leighton) is genuinely interested, he can read Hansard and see the answer.
Whenever Conservative Members make a legitimate point about the rights of union members we get attacked with irrelevancies and noise from the Opposition, just as trade union members get attacked by Left-wing militants who want to silence the voice of the individual. The Bill supports the voice of the individual. It gives teeth to powers that will enable the individual to have his voice heard and that is why we support it.

Mr. Andrew Welsh: The comments of the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) were a foretaste of the rightful indignation that will be felt by trade union members the length and breadth of the country when they find out exactly what the Bill is doing to the trade union movement.
The Government have moved a long way from the more sound principles that they originally appeared to be advancing in the Bill the idea of accepting industrial ballots as the correct and proper way to conduct industrial affairs and the idea of a union clearly seen to have its members' support before it acts on the basis of that support. We have come a long way from that in every one of the Lords amendments. The Government have simply stifled trade union rights until one wonders how many of them still exist. They have given the courts a stranglehold on the trade unions. The original ideas centred around the concept of contracts of employment.
The Bill as drafted referred to an act to break a contract of employment or to interfere with the operation of a contract of employment. In the amendment the form of words is more vague, referring to "any industrial action". The amendment represents a clear shift from the focus on contracts of employment and mutually agreed obligations between employee and employer to the more open-ended concept of "any industrial action". Surely we can expect the Minister to define exactly what he means by "any industrial action". Is there a Civil Service list which specifies such actions? If so, we should be allowed to see it and know what the Minister has in mind.
The concept of an action, such as the breach of an agreed contract, has moved towards an assumption about possible future actions brought by trade unions. It all revolves around the word "likely". We have reached the stage where trade unions are judged, not by what they do, but by what they are likely to do. In other words, it is guilt by assumption before any action takes place. Surely that cannot be just.
The more I hear of the Bill, the more I am left with the simple conclusion that it is designed purely and simply to destroy the ability of the trade unions to operate. It is a deliberate hobbling of the trade union movement and a deliberate destruction of the trade unions' ability to act. It is definitely a Bill too far. What was said by the hon. Member for Bolsover will be repeated by trade unions throughout the country, as they are rightly indignant about what the Government are doing to the important trade union movement.

The Minister of State, Department of Employment (Mr. John Cope): The right hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Foot) and other hon. Members have emphasised the need, which we agree with, for clarity about this legislation and, for that matter, other legislation, as far as we can


manage it. Further, the hon. Member for Newham, North-East (Mr. Leighton) seemed to think that something sinister had happened between Committee stage and now to cause us to change the drafting of the Bill. However, it was the Committee stage which started us on the course of action which has led to these several amendments being before us.
In Committee we had long discussions about the rather complex original drafting of the Bill, especially because of the necessity, as there was then in the Bill, for a union member to establish whether a breach of contract, or interference with a contract, was likely to be involved when deciding whether he could use the power which clause I gives him to insist on a ballot. As a result of the discussions in Committee about the definitions of interfering with the breach of contract, which all those hon. Members on the Committee will recall, we went back to the lawyers. I am glad to say that we induced them—if that is the word—to come up with simpler drafting to achieve what is required.
As the hon. Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen) pointed out, I made it clear in Committee that we think that there should be ballots before all industrial action. If that is included in the Bill, as we think it should be, trade unions and their members can be sure that a member can insist on such a ballot where the union is inducing or seeking to induce industrial action.

Mr. Allen: Is the extension, not the one that the Minister referred to earlier, but the interference with the performance of contract, which was the criterion established in Committee? It is surely that that has now been extended by the Lords amendment, although, as I said, the intention behind the clause was always present.

Mr. Cope: It was interference with the performance of the contract of employment by the individual member that caused a lot of discussion at Committee. The hon. Member for Nottingham, North was part of this discussion, as were other hon. Members. We understood—and those who have read Hansard will understand—the complications involved in that clause. That is the underlying reason for this amendment before us.
We discovered in Committee that in certain cases of industrial action the Bill, as originally drafted, did not require a ballot. I make it clear that we think that there should be a ballot before there is official industrial action by the union. The Bill now provides for that. We think—and Opposition Members argued this at the time—that union members and officials, and others who have to work the legislation, should be able to understand what is going on. The concept of industrial action is well understood. The concept of interference with the performance of a contract of employment is much more difficult for a layman like me to understand, let alone other people who have to work it day by day.
The hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Strang) seemed to think that it had something to do with whether the industrial action was minor or major. That, of course, is not the definition. There were many minor items of industrial action which could easily be covered—indeed were covered—by the Bill as originally drafted. It is not a question of extending the Bill to cover minor ones. It is a minor extension. Many cases of industrial action that are

covered by the Lords amendment, but were not covered by the Bill as drafted, are likely to he minor. However, many other minor cases of industrial action were covered before.

Mr. Charles Kennedy: I have listened with great care to the Minister, as I have to the debate, but I have the greatest difficulty in understanding what he is now talking about. Will he clarify the position about the phrase "any industrial action"? How wide does it go? Further, to what extent does he concede that at the end of the day the definition will probably have to be decided in the courts?

Mr. Cope: Anything we write into legislation in the House is likely to end up in the courts. They are the ultimate arbiters of legislation, and that is how it should be. We try our best to legislate as clearly as we can and nothing goes more to the heart of doing so than these amendments, and that is why we want to introduce them.
"Industrial action" is an extremely well understood term. I do not see that there is any difficulty in understanding what industrial action is. It is defined in the Bill and in the amendments as concerted action induced by unions. After all, it is the union which has to be involved for this clause to bite against an employer and to interrupt his business.

Mr. Leighton: The Minister will correct me, but I think the word "concerted" is used to define a strike, not "any industrial action". We are asking about "any industrial action"; the word "concerted" does not come into it.

Mr. Cope: Industrial action, to be covered by this clause, must be industrial action involving the union. I agree that unions are not always concerted, but a certain amount of co-operation is involved.
I was also asked whether the courts would order that unions should police the conduct of members generally. That is not so. The court can require a union to ensure that earlier, unlawful inducement which the union may have undertaken ceases to have any influence on members' conduct. For example, it may not be enough formally to withdraw a call for industrial action or a strike which the union had previously put out. It has to go to some trouble to ensure that its inducement ceases. That is what the court may order it to do.

Mr. Henry McLeish: I think we are being told that this is just a tidying up of clause 1 of the Bill that we discussed in Committee. Will the Minister comment on the fact that this is a massive extension of the powers in clause 1 relating to ballots for industrial action, because previously we were talking about breaking contracts of employment or interfering in performance? In this context, would a work to rule lead the trade union into the courts?

Mr. Cope: Yes, it could do so. By the way, it could do so under the Bill as drafted, let alone with the addition of the Lords amendments. The Lords amendments make it clearer that it could do so.

Mr. Clelland: rose —

Mr. Bob Cryer: rose —

Mr. Cope: Although I must make some progress, I give way to the hon. Member for Tyne Bridge (Mr. Clelland).

Mr. Clelland: I am grateful to the Minister for clarifying my point about work to rule. He has confirmed that a work to rule would be industrial action. Is he therefore saying that in British law a court will now be able to order workers not to work to the rules which the employer has laid down?

Mr. Cope: It is not about ordering people to work. It is about whether there is a ballot or not. No union will have any problem with the legislation or this clause if it is prepared to organise a ballot of the workers it wants to take industrial action. We all know what we mean by industrial action and what it includes. Any union can hold a ballot if it wants to take industrial action. That is all that it has to do to avoid going to court under the clause.

Mr. Cryer: rose —

Mr. Cope: I give way for the last time.

Mr. Cryer: Will the Minister explain how it is possible for a union to be taken to court for a work to rule if the rules are those incorporated in the contract of employment between the employer and employee? Surely a work to rule cannot result in that because the action would be carrying out the terms of the contract of employment.

Mr. Cope: In the first place, it depends on what the union has said and on what the union has done, as I made clear earlier. However, I should also make it clear that the Bill requires a ballot in all cases of industrial action or, at least, it permits a member of a union to require a ballot in all cases of industrial action. An employer or, for that matter, anyone else can claim damages only if the contract is broken or interfered with. That is a provision of the Bill.
In response to the point raised by the hon. Member for Newham, North-East, I am aware that many trade union officials do not go around inducing strikes all the time. Sometimes they do, but sometimes they are a calming influence. I fully recognise that. However, I reassure the hon. Gentleman, as my hon. Friend the Member for Elmet (Mr. Batiste) has already done, that the Conservative trade union movement not only still exists, but flourishes.
The debate was marked, to our pleasure, by an entertaining speech by the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner). He was as entertaining as usual, and, for that matter, as irrelevant as usual. He said—

Mr. Skinner: What is "work to rule"?

Mr. Cope: Well, what he said was irrelevant to the discussion. [HON. MEMBERS: "Answer the question."] The hon. Gentleman said that he thought that the Lords were giving instructions to us in some form. He need not worry about that. This House makes its own decisions and I believe that it should now make its decision on these Lords amendments.

Mr. Strang: The Minister has brought to mind some of his performances in Committee, when it was clear that he was embarrassed by the provisions of the Bill that he was being asked to defend. We have had a demonstration of a withdrawal of good will in the Minister's performance on these amendments. It is hard to believe that he is making the Government's case. I do not want to be offensive, but it is hard to believe that he ever sat through the Committee proceedings, never mind read the Hansard report of the Lords proceedings.
The new definition seeks to extend the provisions to cover forms of industrial action which might not have been covered as the Bill was previously drafted. It is not good enough for the Minister to say, as he did earlier:
It is not a question of extending the Bill to cover minor ones.
—that is, minor types of action.
It is a minor extension".
We argued at length in Committee that the phrase
interfere with the performance of their contracts of employment
encompassed almost any form of industrial action, whether a withdrawal of voluntary overtime, a work to rule or a withdrawal of goodwill. The proceedings in the House of Lords make it clear that the Government's motive for introducing the new definition is to go even further and make certain, beyond all doubt, that the most modest action, or the most modest withdrawal of goodwill in the performance of a worker's job, would be covered by the legislation. Therefore, the amendment represents a major extension and is, for the reasons that I argued earlier, wholly unjustified.
I do not wish to take up the time of the House for much longer, because we have had a good debate, but the second point to which I must refer is that of policing. I did not use the word "policing" in a general sense, but in relation to Lords amendment No. 2, which is utterly draconian. If a dissident trade unionist has successfully taken the union to court because the shop steward and a few others have decided that they will no longer carry out some voluntary overtime, Lords amendment No. 2 states:
the court shall make such order"—
shall not may—
as it considers appropriate for requiring the union to take step … for ensuring … that there is no … further … inducement of members of the union".
That was the original intention of the Bill, but the amendment states:
the court shall make such order as it considers appropriate for requiring the union to take steps … for ensuring … that no such member engages in any conduct after the making of the order by virtue of having been induced before the making of the order".
That is a reference to a member's conduct and, as I sought to argue earlier, it is an outrageous imposition. It is preposterous that clause 3 states that a trade union will be debarred from undertaking the most elementary and minor disciplining of its members who fail to comply with a strike called after a proper ballot under the terms of the Government's legislation. The shop steward or official will not just say, "We have withdrawn the instruction that there will be an overtime ban, a work to rule, a withdrawal of good will or, in extreme cases, a strike." That official will be required by the court to grab hold of the member, or interfere with his conduct, and say to him, "It is time that you started to work harder for the employer." That is what it means. Presumably the official will also be required to discipline the member if he does not comply with that. That is why it is such an outrageous imposition—

Mr. Allen: My hon. Friend may also wish to point out that this is further compounded by the fact that an employer may take action to ensure that the order is fulfilled, as may an individual member who can be supported by the new commissar for trade union rights. That is in addition to the new clause from the Lords.

Mr. Strang: As my hon. Friend knows, we must recognise the earlier legislation which enables the


employer to require a ballot. In that situation, the definition of industrial action is different from the definition here, which goes wider than the trade union dissident and industrial action.
It is for those reasons, and for the other reasons that have been advanced by my hon. Friends, that we shall vote against Lords amendment No. 1, and for our amendment to Lords amendment No. 2, which would have the effect of removing the draconian form of words to which I have referred.

Question put, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment:—

The House divided: Ayes 253, Noes 193.

Division No. 323]
[6.38 pm


AYES


Aitken, Jonathan
Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)


Alexander, Richard
Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Colvin, Michael


Allason, Rupert
Conway, Derek


Amess, David
Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)


Amos, Alan
Coombs, Simon (Swindon)


Arbuthnot, James
Cope, John


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Couchman, James


Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)
Cran, James


Ashby, David
Currie, Mrs Edwina


Aspinwall, Jack
Curry, David


Atkins, Robert
Davies, Q. (Stamf'd &amp; Spald'g)


Atkinson, David
Davis, David (Boothferry)


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)
Day, Stephen


Baldry, Tony
Dicks, Terry


Batiste, Spencer
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James


Bellingham, Henry
Dover, Den


Bendall, Vivian
Durant, Tony


Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Dykes, Hugh


Benyon, W.
Emery, Sir Peter


Bevan, David Gilroy
Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Evennett, David


Biggs-Davison, Sir John
Fallon, Michael


Blackburn, Dr John G.
Farr, Sir John


Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Favell, Tony


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Fenner, Dame Peggy


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)


Boswell, Tim
Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey


Bottomley, Peter
Fookes, Miss Janet


Bottomley, Mrs Virginia
Forman, Nigel


Bowden, A (Brighton K'pto'n)
Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)


Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)
Forth, Eric


Bowis, John
Fowler, Rt Hon Norman


Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes
Fox, Sir Marcus


Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard
Franks, Cecil


Brandon-Bravo, Martin
Freeman, Roger


Brazier, Julian
French, Douglas


Bright, Graham
Fry, Peter


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Gale, Roger


Brown, Michael (Brigg &amp; Cl't's)
Gardiner, George


Browne, John (Winchester)
Garel-Jones, Tristan


Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon Alick
Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian


Buck, Sir Antony
Goodhart, Sir Philip


Budgen, Nicholas
Goodlad, Alastair


Burns, Simon
Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles


Butcher, John
Gorman, Mrs Teresa


Butler, Chris
Gow, Ian


Butterfill, John
Gower, Sir Raymond


Carlisle, John, (Luton N)
Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)


Carrington, Matthew
Greenway, John (Ryedale)


Carttiss, Michael
Gregory, Conal


Cash, William
Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)


Channon, Rt Hon Paul
Grist, Ian


Chapman, Sydney
Ground, Patrick


Chope, Christopher
Grylls, Michael


Churchill, Mr
Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)





Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)
Portillo, Michael


Hanley, Jeremy
Powell, William (Corby)


Hannam, John
Price, Sir David


Hargreaves, A. (B'ham H'll Gr')
Raison, Rt Hon Timothy


Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)
Rathbone, Tim


Harris, David
Redwood, John


Hawkins, Christopher
Ronton, Tim


Hayes, Jerry
Rhodes James, Robert


Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney
Riddick, Graham


Hayward, Robert
Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas


Heathcoat-Amory, David
Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm


Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)
Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)


Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.
Roe, Mrs Marion


Hill, James
Rossi, Sir Hugh


Hind, Kenneth
Rost, Peter


Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)
Sackville, Hon Tom


Holt, Richard
Sayeed, Jonathan


Howarth, Alan (Strat'd-on-A)
Shaw, David (Dover)


Howarth, G. (Cannock &amp; B'wd)
Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)


Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)
Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')


Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)
Shelton, William (Streatham)


Hunt, David (Wirral W)
Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)


Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)
Sims, Roger


Irvine, Michael
Skeet, Sir Trevor


Jack, Michael
Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)


Jackson, Robert
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Janman, Tim
Soames, Hon Nicholas


Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey
Speed, Keith


Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Speller, Tony


Jones, Robert B (Herts W)
Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)


Jopling, Rt Hon Michael
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine
Squire, Robin


Key, Robert
Steen, Anthony


Knight, Greg (Derby North)
Stern, Michael


Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)
Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)


Lawrence, Ivan
Summerson, Hugo


Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Lightbown, David
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Lilley, Peter
Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)


Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)
Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman


McCrindle, Robert
Temple-Morris, Peter


Maclean, David
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


McLoughlin, Patrick
Thorne, Neil


McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury)
Thurnham, Peter


Major, Rt Hon John
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Mans, Keith
Tracey, Richard


Maples, John
Twinn, Dr Ian


Martin, David (Portsmouth S)
Waddington, Rt Hon David


Maude, Hon Francis
Walden, George


Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Walker, Bill (T'side North)


Mills, Iain
Ward, John


Miscampbell, Norman
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)
Watts, John


Mitchell, David (Hants NW)
Wheeler, John


Morris, M (N'hampton S)
Whitney, Ray


Moss, Malcolm
Widdecombe, Ann


Neale, Gerrard
Wiggin, Jerry


Nelson, Anthony
Wilkinson, John


Neubert, Michael
Wilshire, David


Nicholls, Patrick
Winterton, Mrs Ann


Nicholson, David (Taunton)
Winterton, Nicholas


Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)
Wolfson, Mark


Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley
Wood, Timothy


Oppenheim, Phillip
Woodcock, Mike


Page, Richard
Yeo, Tim


Paice, James



Patten, Chris (Bath)
Tellers for the Ayes:


Pawsey, James
Mr. Richard Ryder and


Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth
 Mr. Stephen Dorrell.


Porter, David (Waveney)





NOES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)


Allen, Graham
Barron, Kevin


Anderson, Donald
Battle, John


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Beckett, Margaret


Armstrong, Hilary
Beith, A. J.


Ashton, Joe
Bell, Stuart


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Benn, Rt Hon Tony






Bermingham, Gerald
Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)


Bidwell, Sydney
Illsley, Eric


Blair, Tony
Ingram, Adam


Blunkett, David
Janner, Greville


Boateng, Paul
John, Brynmor


Bradley, Keith
Jones, Barry (Alyn &amp; Deeside)


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)


Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald


Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)
Kennedy, Charles


Brown, Ron (Edinburgh Leith)
Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Kirkwood, Archy


Buchan, Norman
Lambie, David


Buckley, George J.
Leighton, Ron


Caborn, Richard
Lestor, Joan (Eccles)


Callaghan, Jim
Lewis, Terry


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Litherland, Robert


Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)
Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)


Campbell-Savours, D. N.
Lofthouse, Geoffrey


Canavan, Dennis
Loyden, Eddie


Clark, Dr David (S Shields)
McAllion, John


Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)
McAvoy, Thomas


Clay, Bob
McCartney, Ian


Clelland, David
Macdonald, Calum A.


Coleman, Donald
McFall, John


Cook, Frank (Stockton N)
McLeish, Henry


Corbett, Robin
McNamara, Kevin


Corbyn, Jeremy
McTaggart, Bob


Cousins, Jim
McWilliam, John


Cox, Tom
Madden, Max


Cryer, Bob
Marek, Dr John


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Marshall, David (Shettleston)


Dalyell, Tarn
Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)


Darling, Alistair
Martlew, Eric


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)
Maxton, John


Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)
Meale, Alan


Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H'l)
Michael, Alun


Dewar, Donald
Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)


Dixon, Don
Millan, Rt Hon Bruce


Dobson, Frank
Moonie, Dr Lewis


Doran, Frank
Morgan, Rhodri


Duffy, A. E. P.
Morley, Elliott


Dunnachie, Jimmy
Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)


Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth
Mowlam, Marjorie


Eadie, Alexander
Mullin, Chris


Eastham, Ken
Murphy, Paul


Evans, John (St Helens N)
Nellist, Dave


Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)
Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon


Field, Frank (Birkenhead)
O'Brien, William


Fields, Terry (L'pool B G'n)
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley


Fisher, Mark
Patchett, Terry


Flannery, Martin
Pike, Peter L.


Flynn, Paul
Prescott, John


Foot, Rt Hon Michael
Quin, Ms Joyce


Foster, Derek
Radice, Giles


Foulkes, George
Redmond, Martin


Fraser, John
Reid, Dr John


Galbraith, Sam
Richardson, Jo


Galloway, George
Robertson, George


Garrett, John (Norwich South)
Robinson, Geoffrey


George, Bruce
Rogers, Allan


Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John
Rooker, Jeff


Godman, Dr Norman A.
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)


Gordon, Mildred
Rowlands, Ted


Gould, Bryan
Ruddock, Joan


Graham, Thomas
Salmond, Alex


Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)
Sedgemore, Brian


Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
Short, Clare


Grocott, Bruce
Skinner, Dennis


Haynes, Frank
Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)


Healey, Rt Hon Denis
Smith, C. (Isl'ton &amp; F'bury)


Henderson, Doug
Smith, Rt Hon J. (Monk'ds E)


Hogg, N. (C'nauld &amp; Kilsyth)
Snape, Peter


Home Robertson, John
Soley, Clive


Hood, Jimmy
Spearing, Nigel


Howarth, George (Knowsley N)
Steel, Rt Hon David


Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)
Steinberg, Gerry


Howells, Geraint
Stott, Roger


Hughes, John (Coventry NE)
Strang, Gavin


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)





Taylor, Matthew (Truro)
Wigley, Dafydd


Thomas, Dr Dafydd Elis
Williams, Rt Hon Alan


Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)
Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)


Turner, Dennis
Wilson, Brian


Wall, Pat
Winnick, David


Wallace, James
Worthington, Tony


Walley, Joan
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Warden, Gareth (Gower)



Wareing, Robert N.
Tellers for the Noes:


Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)
Mr. Allen Adams and


Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)
 Mr. Ray Powell.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Lords amendment: No. 2, in page 2, line 1, leave out from "satisfied" to end of line 13 and insert—
"(a) that a trade union has, without the support of a ballot, authorised or endorsed any industrial action;
(b) that (whether or not the action has already commenced) members of the union are likely to be, or have been, induced by the union to take part or to continue to take part in that action; and
(c) that the members of the union who arc likely to be, or have been, so induced include the applicant,
the court shall make such order as it considers appropriate for requiring the union to take steps (including the withdrawal of any relevant authorisation or endorsement) for ensuring that there is no, or no further, inducement of members of the union to take part or to continue to take part in that action and that no such member engages in any conduct after the making of the order by virtue of having been induced before the making of the order or to take part or to continue to take part in the action."

Read a Second time.

Amendment (a) proposed to the Lords amendment, in line 9, leave out from 'order' to end of amendment and insert
'as is reasonably practicable in the circumstances for requiring the Union to ensure that no member engages in any conduct which constitutes a breach of their contract of employment by virtue of having been induced before the making of the order to take part or continue to take part in the action'.—[Mr. Strung.]

Question put, That the amendment he made to the Lords amendment:—

The House divided: Ayes 184, Noes 262.

Division No. 324]
[6.52 pm


AYES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Clark, Dr David (S Shields)


Allen, Graham
Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)


Anderson, Donald
Clay, Bob


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Clelland, David


Armstrong, Hilary
Coleman, Donald


Ashton, Joe
Cook, Frank (Stockton N)


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Corbett, Robin


Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)
Corbyn, Jeremy


Barron, Kevin
Cousins, Jim


Battle, John
Cox, Tom


Beckett, Margaret
Cryer, Bob


Bell, Stuart
Cunliffe, Lawrence


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Dalyell, Tarn


Bermingham, Gerald
Darling, Alistair


Bidwell, Sydney
Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)


Blair, Tony
Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)


Blunkett, David
Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H'l)


Boateng, Paul
Dewar, Donald


Bradley, Keith
Dixon, Don


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Dobson, Frank


Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)
Doran, Frank


Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)
Duffy, A. E. P.


Brown, Ron (Edinburgh Leith)
Dunnachie, Jimmy


Buchan, Norman
Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth


Buckley, George J.
Eadie, Alexander


Caborn, Richard
Eastham, Ken


Callaghan, Jim
Evans, John (St Helens N)


Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)
Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)


Campbell-Savours, D. N.
Field, Frank (Birkenhead)


Canavan, Dennis
Fields, Terry (L'pool B G'n)






Fisher, Mark
Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)


Flannery, Martin
Millan, Rt Hon Bruce


Flynn, Paul
Moonie, Dr Lewis


Foot, Rt Hon Michael
Morgan, Rhodri


Foster, Derek
Morley, Elliott


Foulkes, George
Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)


Fraser, John
Mowlam, Marjorie


Galbraith, Sam
Mullin, Chris


Galloway, George
Murphy, Paul


Garrett, John (Norwich South)
Nellist, Dave


George, Bruce
Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon


Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John
O'Brien, William


Godman, Dr Norman A.
O'Neill, Martin


Gordon, Mildred
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley


Gould, Bryan
Patchett, Terry


Graham, Thomas
Pike, Peter L.


Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)
Prescott, John


Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)
Quin, Ms Joyce


Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
Radice, Giles


Grocott, Bruce
Redmond, Martin


Hardy, Peter
Reid, Dr John


Haynes, Frank
Richardson, Jo


Healey, Rt Hon Denis
Robertson, George


Henderson, Doug
Robinson, Geoffrey


Hogg, N. (C'nauld &amp; Kilsyth)
Rogers, Allan


Home Robertson, John
Rooker, Jeff


Hood, Jimmy
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)


Howarth, George (Knowsley N)
Rowlands, Ted


Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)
Ruddock, Joan


Hughes, John (Coventry NE)
Salmond, Alex


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Sedgemore, Brian


Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Illsley, Eric
Short, Clare


Ingram, Adam
Skinner, Dennis


Janner, Greville
Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)


John, Brynmor
Smith, C. (Isl'ton &amp; F'bury)


Jones, Barry (Alyn &amp; Deeside)
Smith, Rt Hon J. (Monk'ds E)


Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)
Snape, Peter


Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Soley, Clive


Lambie, David
Spearing, Nigel


Leighton, Ron
Steinberg, Gerry


Lestor, Joan (Eccles)
Stott, Roger


Lewis, Terry
Strang, Gavin


Litherland, Robert
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)
Thomas, Dr Dafydd Elis


Lofthouse, Geoffrey
Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)


Loyden, Eddie
Turner, Dennis


McAllion, John
Wall, Pat


McAvoy, Thomas
Walley, Joan


McCartney, Ian
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


Macdonald, Calum A.
Wareing, Robert N.


McFall, John
Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)


McLeish, Henry
Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)


McNamara, Kevin
Wigley, Dafydd


McTaggart, Bob
Williams, Rt Hon Alan


McWilliam, John
Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)


Madden, Max
Wilson, Brian


Marek, Dr John
Winnick, David


Marshall, David (Shettleston)
Worthington, Tony


Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Martlew, Eric



Maxton, John
Tellers for the Ayes:


Meale, Alan
Mr. Allen Adams and


Michael, Alun
 Mr. Ray Powell.




NOES


Aitken, Jonathan
Baldry, Tony


Alexander, Richard
Batiste, Spencer


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Beith, A. J.


Allason, Rupert
Bellingham, Henry


Amess, David
Bendall, Vivian


Amos, Alan
Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)


Arbuthnot, James
Bevan, David Gilroy


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Biffen, Rt Hon John


Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)
Biggs-Davison, Sir John


Ashby, David
Blackburn, Dr John G.


Aspinwall, Jack
Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter


Atkins, Robert
Bonsor, Sir Nicholas


Atkinson, David
Boscawen, Hon Robert


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)
Boswell, Tim





Bottomley, Peter
Greenway, John (Ryedale)


Bottomley, Mrs Virginia
Gregory, Conal


Bowden, A (Brighton K'pto'n)
Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)


Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)
Grist, Ian


Bowis, John
Ground, Patrick


Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes
Grylls, Michael


Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard
Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn


Brandon-Bravo, Martin
Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)


Brazier, Julian
Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)


Bright, Graham
Hanley, Jeremy


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Hannam, John


Brown, Michael (Brigg &amp; Cl't's)
Hargreaves, A. (B'ham H'll Gr')


Browne, John (Winchester)
Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Harris, David


Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon Alick
Hawkins, Christopher


Buck, Sir Antony
Hayes, Jerry


Budgen, Nicholas
Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney


Burns, Simon
Hayward, Robert


Butcher, John
Heathcoat-Amory, David


Butler, Chris
Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)


Butterfill, John
Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Hill, James


Carlisle, John, (Luton N)
Hind, Kenneth


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)


Carrington, Matthew
Holt, Richard


Carttiss, Michael
Howarth, Alan (Strat'd-on-A)


Cash, William
Howarth, G. (Cannock &amp; B'wd)


Channon, Rt Hon Paul
Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)


Chapman, Sydney
Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)


Chope, Christopher
Howells, Geraint


Churchill, Mr
Hunt, David (Wirral W)


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)


Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)
Irvine, Michael


Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)
Jack, Michael


Colvin, Michael
Jackson, Robert


Conway, Derek
Janman, Tim


Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)
Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)


Cope, John
Jones, Robert B (Herts W)


Couchman, James
Jopling, Rt Hon Michael


Cran, James
Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine


Currie, Mrs Edwina
Kennedy, Charles


Curry, David
Key, Robert


Davies, Q. (Stamf'd &amp; Spald'g)
Kirkwood, Archy


Davis, David (Boothferry)
Knight, Greg (Derby North)


Day, Stephen
Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)


Dicks, Terry
Latham, Michael


Dorrell, Stephen
Lawrence, Ivan


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark


Dover, Den
Lilley, Peter


Durant, Tony
Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)


Emery, Sir Peter
McCrindle, Robert


Evennett, David
Maclean, David


Fallon, Michael
McLoughlin, Patrick


Farr, Sir John
Major, Rt Hon John


Favell, Tony
Mans, Keith


Fenner, Dame Peggy
Maples, John


Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)
Martin, David (Portsmouth S)


Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey
Maude, Hon Francis


Fookes, Miss Janet
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin


Forman, Nigel
Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l &amp; Bute)


Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
Miller, Hal


Forth, Eric
Mills, Iain


Fowler, Rt Hon Norman
Miscampbell, Norman


Fox, Sir Marcus
Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)


Franks, Cecil
Mitchell, David (Hants NW)


Freeman, Roger
Morris, M (N'hampton S)


French, Douglas
Moss, Malcolm


Fry, Peter
Neale, Gerrard


Gale, Roger
Nelson, Anthony


Gardiner, George
Neubert, Michael


Garel-Jones, Tristan
Nicholls, Patrick


Goodhart, Sir Philip
Nicholson, David (Taunton)


Goodlad, Alastair
Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)


Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles
Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley


Gorman, Mrs Teresa
Oppenheim, Phillip


Gow, Ian
Page, Richard


Gower, Sir Raymond
Paice, James


Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)
Patten, Chris (Bath)


Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)
Pawsey, James






Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth
Stradling Thomas, Sir John


Porter, David (Waveney)
Summerson, Hugo


Portillo, Michael
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Powell, William (Corby)
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Price, Sir David
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Raison, Rt Hon Timothy
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Rathbone, Tim
Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)


Redwood, John
Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman


Renton, Tim
Temple-Morris, Peter


Rhodes James, Robert
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Riddick, Graham
Thorne, Neil


Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas
Thurnham, Peter


Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)
Tracey, Richard


Roe, Mrs Marion
Twinn, Dr Ian


Rossi, Sir Hugh
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Rost, Peter
Waddington, Rt Hon David


Sackville, Hon Tom
Walden, George


Sayeed, Jonathan
Walker, Bill (T'side North)


Shaw, David (Dover)
Wallace, James


Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)
Ward, John


Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Shelton, William (Streatham)
Watts, John


Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)
Wheeler, John


Sims, Roger
Whitney, Ray


Skeet, Sir Trevor
Widdecombe, Ann


Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)
Wiggin, Jerry


Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)
Wilkinson, John


Soames, Hon Nicholas
Wilshire, David


Speed, Keith
Winterton, Mrs Ann


Speller, Tony
Winterton, Nicholas


Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)
Wolfson, Mark


Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)
Wood, Timothy


Squire, Robin
Woodcock, Mike


Steel, Rt Hon David
Yeo, Tim


Steen, Anthony



Stern, Michael
Tellers for the Noes:


Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)
Mr. David Lightbown and


Stokes, John
 Mr. Richard Ryder.

Question accordingly negatived.

Lords amendment agreed to.

Lords amendment Nos. 3 to 8 agreed to.

Clause 5

FURTHER REMEDIES FOR INFRINGEMENT OF RIGHT UNDER SECTION 3

Lords amendment: No. 9, in page 8, line 13, at end insert—
(3A) Where the Employment Appeal Tribunal or any industrial tribunal is satisfied, on an application under this section, that it would (but for this subsection) be required by virtue of subsection (2) above to dismiss the application, it may, instead of dismissing it, transfer the application to an industrial tribunal or, as the case may be, to the Employment Appeal Tribunal; and an application transferred under this subsection shall be proceeded with as if it had been made in accordance with that subsection at the time when it was originally made.

7 pm

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. Patrick Nicholls): I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): With this it will be convenient to discuss Lords amendments Nos. 37 and 38.

Mr. Nicholls: This is a tidying-up amendment concerning the method of applying for compensation in respect of unjustifiable discipline. Briefly, it ensures that if an individual makes his application for compensation to the employment appeal tribunal and it decides that the appeal should have been made to an industrial tribunal

because the union has revoked the disciplinary finding and reversed any penalty, the appeal tribunal will have the power to remit that application to an industrial tribunal. Similarly, an industrial tribunal will be empowered to remit applications incorrectly made to it to the EAT.
Without that amendment the appeal tribunal could only reject the application, leaving the individual to make a new application to an industrial tribunal. This would be unnecessarily bureaucratic and could mean that the individual would lose his right to apply for compensation if the mistake was not pointed out before the time allowed for making a compensation claim had expired. I appreciate that Opposition Members are fundamentally opposed to such a concept in any event. However, the House has a duty to ensure that the remedies provided work properly. Amendments Nos. 37 and 38 are purely technical.

Mr. Strang: Suffice it to say that these are primarily technical amendments. While we are unhappy about the whole tenor of the Bill, we shall not detain the House any longer.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 7

RIGHT TO REQUIRE EMPLOYER TO STOP DEDUCTIONS OF UNION SUBSCRIPTIONS

Lords amendment: No. 10, in page 11, line 27, leave out subsections (3) and (4) and insert—
(3) Notwithstanding anything in any contract between the employee and the employer, or in any agreement or consent signified by the employee, a deduction made in contravention of this section shall in all cases be treated for the purposes of Part I of the Wages Act 1986 as a deduction in contravention of section 1(1) of that Act.

Mr. Cope: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss Lords amendments Nos. 33 and 56 to 60.

Mr. Cope: Clause 7 deals with the case of an employee certifying to his employer that he has left his union arid that the union is aware of his resignation. The employer must then stop deducting union subscriptions from the employee's remuneration.
In Committee, the Opposition withdrew an amendment after we gave a certain undertaking. Lords amendment No. 10 fulfils that undertaking and achieves what was asked of us by the Opposition in Committee. It ensures that if an employer, having been given notice, continues to make deductions from an employee's wages the employee may go to an industrial tribunal for a declaration and a refund of the deductions incorrectly made, instead of having to apply to a county court, as was provided for in the Bill as originally drafted.
The remaining amendments cover the same point. I recommend the amendments to the House.

Mr. Strang: These are minor and technical amendments, and we do not propose to detain the House on them.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 12

EXTENSION TO NON-VOTING POSITIONS OF DUTY TO HOLD ELECTIONS

Lords amendment: No. 11, in page 14, line 24, after "body" insert
and subject to subsection (6C) below

Mr. Nicholls: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following Lords amendments: No. 13 and amendment (a) thereto, and No. 53.

Mr. Nicholls: The amendments fulfil a commitment that I gave in Committee. I am happy to say that they were welcomed by the Opposition spokesman in another place, Lord McCarthy. They reflect consideration of the principle behind an Opposition amendment to exempt from the election requirement general secretaries and presidents if their position is occupied under the rules of the union by a different person annually and that person is not a voting member of the committee.
The essence of the amendment is that individuals holding the office of general secretary or president in an honorary capacity under the Buggins principle should not have to be elected. The majority of individuals likely to benefit from this exemption will be lay members of a union appointed or elected, perhaps by a union's conference, to serve as president.
In Committee, the Opposition described it as a moderate amendment, but it marks a significant departure from the Government's expressed intention that all presidents and general secretaries should be elected. It is made on the basis that the positions involved are normally honorary and do not carry the power and authority usually associated with such offices.
As to the Opposition amendment, the Government accept that individuals should not have to be elected if they hold the position of general secretary or president where it is honorary and occupied under the rules of the union by a different person annually who is not a voting member of the committee. I hope that I shall not embarrass the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Strang) by reminding him of his expression of gratitude in Committee, because from my reading of the Opposition amendment it seems that he now wants to go further. The Opposition amendment would subvert the concession made by the Government in another place. If made, some general secretaries and presidents will be able to hold office indefinitely, without a requirement that they should face an election. We should then be back to the issue of whether unions should be allowed to continue appointing their general secretaries.

Mr. Strang: As the Under-Secretary of State has indicated, the Government amendments were made in another place in response to Opposition amendments concerning the position of honorary general secretaries and presidents. A person is exempted from the election requirement if he is not a voting member of the principal executive comittee, if he is not an employee of the union, if his term of office does not extend beyond 13 months, and if he has held no position in the preceding 12 months.
The Minister has referred to our amendment, which we see as minor. It would remove the requirement that the

honorary position can be held for only 13 months. We are talking about honorary positions. I do not think it fair to treat this as a wrecking amendment or one that would extend unreasonably the concession that has been made. It is not by any means one of the more important parts of the Bill. Nevertheless, while we welcome the small concession, we feel that there is no need to maintain the stipulation of 13 months as the maximum period for which an honorary president or general secretary can hold office.

Question put and agreed to.

Lords amendment: No. 12, in page 14, line 33, leave out
incidental to the carrying out by the committee of
and insert
taken into account by the committee in carrying out

Mr. Nicholls: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
Clause 12 is intended to ensure that union leaders are representative of the membership. It therefore extends the election requirements of the Trade Union Act 1984 to all members of the principal executive committee, general secretaries and presidents, and to those who act as though they were members of the PEC, and ensures that they are better able to represent the views of the membership. The clause also closes a loophole in the 1984 Act by means of which certain trade union leaders have been able to give up their vote on the PEC to evade the election requirements. The clause is therefore drafted tightly to reduce to a minimum any opportunity for evasion, and it is important to avoid producing any new loopholes.
Clause 12(1) adds new subsections (6A) and (6B) to section 1 of the 1984 Act. As drafted, new subsection (6A)(b) extends the electoral requirements to those who under the rules or practice of a union are entitled to attend and speak at some or all of the meetings of the PEC. To avoid any unnecessary extension of the election requirements, however, it is disapplied where the purpose for which the individual attends is to provide the PEC with factual information or technical or professional advice with respect to matters incidental to the PEC's carrying out of its functions.
Members of the Standing Committee will remember the concern expressed there about the use of the word "incidental". That concern was reflected in debates in another place, and the Government accordingly undertook to see whether the meaning of that part of the subsection could be made clearer. The Government regard it as important that individuals should not be able to play a full part in the activities of the PEC and yet be exempted from the requirement to be elected. We have therefore been conscious of the need to maintain the original distinction between an individual who offers only supporting advice and does not therefore need to be elected, and one whose contribution goes further, involving participation in the decision-making process.
We believe that that distinction has been maintained by the amendment, which replaced the phrase containing the word "incidental" with one that is more readily comprehensible. We think that the drafting has been improved in another place, and that the amendment will bring clarity where unions have previously claimed that there was uncertainty about our intentions.

Mr. Strang: The Minister has rightly reminded us of the discussions in Committee on this point. As he has said, it is a very minor change, and I agree that it clarifies the position slightly. We are still unhappy about the general


thrust of the clause, but in so far as it makes the position slightly clearer and is helpful, albeit in a small way—in that some individuals who may have been caught by the earlier wording should not be caught by this wording—we will not oppose the amendment.

Question put and agreed to.

Lords amendment No. 13 agreed to.

Lords amendment: No. 14, in page 14, line 47, at end insert—
(1A) Without prejudice to section 7(4) to (8) of the 1984 Act (Part I not to apply to a trade union for a year after its formation), where—
(a) by virtue of any election (including one held before the coming into force of this subsection) a person is a member of a trade union's principal executive committee at a time after the coming into force of this subsection when that trade union amalgamates with, or transfers its engagements to, another union under the Trade Union (Amalgamation, etc.) Act 1964;
(b) under the instrument of amalgamation or transfer, that person becomes a member of the principal executive committee of the trade union formed by the amalgamation or, as the case may be, of the union to which the engagements are transferred (whether by taking up the same position as he held in the amalgamating or transferring union or by taking up any other position); and
(c) under Part I of the 1984 Act or the following provisions of this section that person would have been entitled, at the time of the amalgamation or transfer, to continue for any period, without being re-elected, to be a member of the principal executive committee mentioned in paragraph (a) above or, as the case may be, to hold the position by virtue of which he was such a member,
Part I of that Act shall not apply in relation to that person to the union formed by the amalgamation or, as the case may be, to the union to which the engagements are transferred until the end of the period mentioned in paragraph (c) above.

Mr. Cope: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this we may take Lords amendments Nos. 15 to 17.

Mr. Cope: The origins of the amendment lie in points raised with us by several unions which are contemplating merger. Initially, it was the General and Municipal Boilermakers and Allied Trades Union and the Association of Professional, Executive, Clerical and Computer Staffs. The question is what happens to their officials in relation to elections when the merger takes place.
In Committee in the other place, Lord Basnett moved an amendment on the same point. We were asked that where a merger took place the law should permit the elected members of a union's principal executive committee to hold office on the executive of the new merged union for the balance of the full term of five years from the date of their election to the principal executive committee of their original union.
We believe that the law should not stand in the way of unions merging if that is what the members of the individual unions wish. Therefore, our colleagues in another place introduced this group of amendments to give effect to the proposal put to us.

Mr. Strang: As the Minister has said, this issue was debated substantially in another place. While it is possible

to discuss at some length whether the amendments might have gone even further, they nevertheless address themselves to the point, and we welcome them as modest improvements to the operation of the provisions for the election of trade union officials.

Question put and agreed to.

Lords amendments Nos. 15 to 17 agreed to.

Lords amendment: No. 18, after clause 12, insert the following new clause—

Election addresses

".—(1) The requirements which are to be satisfied for the purposes of Part I of the 1984 Act (elections for certain positions) shall, in relation to any election held after the coming into force of this section, include the requirements of subsection (2) below.

(2) The trade union in question must—
(a) subject to subsection (3) below, provide every candidate in the election with an opportunity of preparing an election address in his own words and of submitting it to the union to be distributed to the persons who are accorded entitlement to vote in the election;
(b) so far as reasonably practicable, secure that copies of every election address submitted to the union before such time as it may have determined are distributed by the sending of a copy of each such address, with the voting paper for the election, by post to each of those persons at his proper address;
(c) make such arrangements for the production of the copies to be so distributed as secure that none of the candidates is required to bear any of the expense of producing those copies;
(d) secure that no modification of any election address so submitted is made by any person in any copy of the address to be distributed except, subject to paragraphs (e) and (f) below, at the request or with the consent of the candidate or where the modification is necessarily incidental to the method adopted for producing that copy;
(e) secure that the same method of producing copies is applied in the same way to every election address so submitted and, so far as reasonably practicable, that no such facility or information as would enable a candidate to gain any benefit from—
(i) the method by which copies of the election addresses are produced; or
(ii) the modifications which are necessarily incidental to that method,
is provided to any candidate without being provided equally to all the others; and
(f) so far as reasonably practicable, secure that the same facilities and restrictions with respect to the preparation, submission, length or modification of an election address and with respect to the incorporation in any such address of a photograph or of any other matter not in words are provided or applied equally to each of the candidates.

(3) Subject to subsection (2)(f) above, a trade union may for the purposes of this section provide that election addresses submitted to it for distribution—
(a) must not exceed such length, not being less than one hundred words, as may be determined by the union; and
(b) may incorporate only such photographs and other matter not in words as the union may determine.

(4) A time determined for the purposes of subsection (2) above as the time by which election addresses for an election must be submitted to the union shall be no earlier than the latest time at which a person may become a candidate in that election.

(5) No person other than the candidate himself shall be subject to any civil or criminal liability in respect of any publication of a candidate's election address, or of any copy of such an address, which is required to be made for the purposes of this section.

(6) In this section 'post' and 'proper address' have the same meanings as in Part I of the 1984 Act."

Mr. Cope: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this we may take amendment (a) to the Lords amendment; and Lords amendments Nos. 21, 41, 44 to 48, 50 and 51.

Mr. Cope: These are significant amendments which have been discussed in Committee as well as in another place. Those who have followed our debates will know that they enact proposals originally made in Committee by my hon. Friend the Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Riddick), whom I am glad to see with us this evening. There was and is considerable support for the measure both before and after my hon. Friend introduced his amendment.
The purpose is to provide for a candidate in a union election to have an election address sent round by the union explaining his stance so that the individual union members can make up their minds, on the basis of information, whom to vote for in the various elections. There was considerable support for early-day motion 270. There was also support in another place for amendments put down by Liberal and Cross-Bench Members. Even the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Strang), while not supporting what we proposed, at least agreed that in principle it was highly desirable that any person voting in an election should have some knowledge of the candidates for whom he was voting.
The essence of the proposal is to give candidates the right to prepare, and have sent with the voting paper, an election address. The unions are left free to determine many of the issues, but some minimum requirements are laid down. The union, for example, cannot edit the election addresses unless the candidate expressly gives permission. Nor can it impose a requirement that they be less than 100 words. Many unions already distribute election addresses, and many permit a higher number of words. It does not mean that the candidate is obliged to use all the 100 words, but that is the minimum that the union is allowed to permit him. Another important aspect is that the candidates must be treated equally by the unions in the rules that they make for them. I am sure that everyone would agree with that.
The issue of liability if a candidate's election address contains inaccurate or libellous statements is important. We are anxious to make it clear that the content of the address is the responsibility of the candidate and not that of the union that distributes it, or those who print it on the union's behalf. The candidate must be responsible at law for what he says, and the clause provides for that and gives protection to the union against actions that might otherwise arise from statements in the address that might prove to be libellous or give rise to a court action.
The rules that we have provided for those election addresses to be prepared and sent out will be fair to the candidates and will assist union members in deciding which way to vote. I confirm that unions will be able to apply for a refund of the cost of election addresses sent out with the ballot papers under the existing trade union ballot funding scheme.
I commend the amendment to the House.

Mr. Strang: The Minister referred to our discussion in Committee. He will appreciate that, although we consider many things to be desirable about the activities of trade unions, we respect the right of trade unions to have their own rules. The point was made quite effectively in the

other place that, by stipulating these matters in legislation and laying down provisions by law, sometimes in contradiction of the trade union rule book, one would encourage trade union members to have less respect for their own trade union rule books.
We consider that the democratic history and evolution of individual trade unions is such that they have developed rules that satisfy the particular circumstances of the members of that union, depending on the industry in which they are involved. Therefore, it is quite wrong for the Government to make impositions or to turn practices into law. I consider that it would have been better to put some of the detailed points into a code of practice.
As the Minister has explained, Lords amendment No. 18 relates specifically to the election address. I am grateful to him for saying that the cost of election addresses can be claimed by unions if it is their policy to seek Government funding for such activities. The majority of trade unions issue election addresses, some of them longer than 150 words, but the amendment does not seem to constitute any problem in that respect.
I shall make one point about liability for the content of election addresses. I was pleased that the Minister explained that the intention was that the individual candidate would be liable for any libel in the election address. It seemed to us that it was wrong that the author of a libel might be immune in law from prosecution. Our amendment deletes the stipulation in the Bill that only the candidate is liable to any civil or criminal action due to the content of the election address. We certainly do not want the trade union to be liable. However, if some slander were incorporated in an election address, the author or originator of that slander should not go free.
We certainly shall not make a meal of this, and we shall not divide the House. We do not regard the amendment as important, and we shall not oppose the Lords amendment. I simply make the point that it is not really appropriate for the Government to prescribe this by statute.

Mr. Graham Riddick: I support the amendment and I thank the Minister for honouring his commitment. He gave a fairly clear commitment in Committee that he would examine the principle of giving trade union members a greater degree of information about what each candidate in union elections was representing. I am most grateful to him for having moved such an amendment in the other place.
The new clause is probably an improvement on the new clause that I tabled in Committee. I recall that my hon. Friend raised many of the problems relating to libel, so I am pleased that those problems have been overcome with three and a half lines in subsection (5) of the new clause. I am pleased that we have been able to overcome the practical problems.
The clause clearly outlines trade unions' responsibilities. Like the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Strang), I welcome the fact that unions will not have to bear any of the cost of the improvements to the process of electing their officials. If, as it is so often said, the Conservative party wanted to bash trade unions, the easiest thing would have been to make them liable for the costs and make them pick up the bill. We do not want to do that. We want to improve the electoral process. We have done that and we have ensured that it will not cost the unions a penny.
I shall briefly examine the attitude of the Opposition, as I did in Committee. We understand that they believe that trade unions should be left to run their own affairs. That is understandable, but the Conservative party does not agree with that view. As we all know, trade union officials have to be elected by the membership. It was interesting that in Committee the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East welcomed the principle of the amendment that trade union members should have more information. I found it sad and a little revealing that other members of the Committee, including the hon. Members for Sunderland, North (Mr. Clay) and for Ashfield (Mr. Haynes)—who had a bit of fun at the end of that day in Committee—were much more hostile to the idea of giving trade union members more information about candidates.
I welcome the fact that, today, the Opposition spokesman has given the amendment a grudging welcome. I am most grateful to my hon. Friend the Minister for having taken this point on board. Ultimately, we are ensuring that trade union members are given the maximum possible information so that they can make the best and most informed choice in the election of their principal officers. I congratulate the Government on bringing forward the amendment in the other place.

Mr. Clelland: I had not intended to speak in the debate, but the hon. Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Riddick) has provoked me into doing so. I, too, believe that trade union members ought to have the maximum information about the people whom they are to elect. That is quite right and no one would argue with it. However, we continue to argue that free and independent organisations should be able to make such decisions for themselves, which should not necessarily have to be written down in statute. Indeed, numerous organisations throughout the country hold elections for officials, but only trade unions have been singled out for such treatment.
I remind the hon. Gentleman that those who might be considered to be more significant representatives of the public do not have that obligation. Members of Parliament are not obliged to put out election propaganda or information. They are not even obliged to tell the electorate which political party, if any, they represent.

Mr. Riddick: I understand that no candidate is obliged to send out information. The amendment simply gives candidates the opportunity to do so by compelling trade unions to give candidates that opportunity if the candidate so wishes. There is no compulsion on the candidate.

Mr. Clelland: There is no opportunity for candidates for local government or Members of Parliament standing for re-election to have their election addresses paid for by the state, as may be the case under the amendment, or indeed to oblige any other organisation to pay for election propaganda. That is just another demonstration of the special treatment that the Government mete out only to trade unions.

Mr. Richard Holt: I seek clarification of two matters.
In the furniture industry it has been traditional for many years for candidates for elected office to have all their details submitted by the union journal, so this will come as no surprise to that industry. When a series of posts become available there may be only two candidates for one, but 10 for the other—for example, for a more

lucrative regional officer's job. Are all 12 to have the same size of photograph, for example, or will the union be a limited newspaper and determine which is the more important and give it space accordingly?
7.30 pm
I fear that the 100-word stipulation may mean that after a person has been elected to office he will find himself disbarred because he has written 102 words in his election address. It is silly for any Government to insert a figure for that, especially when dealing with industrial relations. Perhaps it is too late, but I warn my hon. Friend that this will lead to unnecessary court action.
It is all very well to say that there is indemnification for everyone except the person who may have written the election address. In the fullness of time, when others have the responsibilities of those who have them today, I wonder whether that law will still be on the statute book and the courts will interpret it as it is intended to be interpreted now. We all know that courts reinterpret laws over the years. Is there to be indemnification for the publishers and printers of any literature henceforth and for all time? If so, we shall be bringing a new concept into the law of libel which may have deeper ramifications than the Employment Bill.

Mr. Allen: One hundred and one words in a manifesto would be permissible, but not 99, because the minimum is 100, so the position is even more ridiculous than the circumstances that the hon. Gentleman is describing. I imagine that that is just one of a few problems in this ill thought out, late addition to the Bill.

Mr. Holt: I have spent 25 years in industrial relations trying to work out what politicians intended. Most of them were long gone and I could not ask them. I could get only the latest interpretation of the courts, and they change their interpretations. The benchmark cases under the Industrial Relations Acts since 1963 go in leaps and bounds, which is why I am asking whether the Government are right to insert in the legislation a specific as obvious as 100 words and that people can be completely immune from a libel action, except the person who writes the libel.

Mr. Cope: I am grateful to those who have contributed to the debate. Most of them have supported to a greater or lesser degree some element of what we are trying to do.
Under common law, if two people write and publish a libel, both are legally liable. I am not speaking specifically about election addresses, but about the general case at common law. A candidate in some elections may have assistance in writing his election address. The act of giving candidates in these elections the right to prepare an election address and have it published alters the common law position to the extent that the unions, although liable under common law for publishing such an address, might have a defence in that they had done so to comply with a statutory requirement. There was a doubt and, because of that, we thought it right to make the legal liability clear. It is, after all, a privilege to have the opportunity to make an election address, and that privilege is given to the candidate alone in the specific circumstances of the election in which he is taking part. Therefore, it should he the candidate's responsibility alone to ensure that the address does not contain any libel, even if he takes advice in the course of preparing it.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Riddick) pointed out, a candidate is not obliged to publish an election address, but the union is obliged to publish a particular number of words. He may decide to put out a short election address in the hope that more people will read it than if he covers pages with information. On the other hand, he may think that he needs to explain his views at greater length.
The union has an obligation to say that if there is to be a minimum number of words it must be 100. At present some unions permit 500 words, but they can put a top limit on it and say, "We are not prepared to duplicate reams. We cannot have a candidate sending out his life story." It would be wrong to oblige unions to do that, but at the same time they must be obliged to send out the address, hence the figure of 100.

Mr. Clelland: If it is right in principle that trade unions should give candidates the opportunity and the resources to send out an election address, albeit within the limitations of the Bill, why does the same principle not apply to local government and, indeed, to parliamentary candidates? Should the principle not apply equally? It may even be argued that it is more important in local government and parliamentary elections.

Mr. Cope: In parliamentary elections candidates have a free go at the post, but this is not necessarily relevant to what we are discussing. I think that the hon. Gentleman belongs to the Amalgamated Engineering Union, which permits candidates to send round an address of up to 500 words, so it is ahead of the Government in this. It is not alone in that, and I should not want to single it out, because many others also send round election addresses and have various figures stipulated in their rules. The limit of 100 is modest.
My hon. Friend the Member for Langbaurgh (Mr. Holt) asked about indemnification and whether it would last for all time.

Mr. Holt: The legislation states that ballot papers must be sent out with the election addresses. Many unions keep the ballot paper so that it is certified by the certification officer in exactly the same way as in local government or national Government elections. It does not get lost and there is no argument about duplication. Is my hon. Friend seriously saying that the only acceptable way of doing this is by sending a ballot paper through the post?

Mr. Cope: Yes, our intention is that an election address should go out with the ballot paper.
My hon. Friend also spoke about indemnification for all time. The House cannot pass and has no means of passing legislation that will last for longer than Parliament chooses, as these are Lords amendments. A future Parliament can pass a statute to change the law of libel. Provided that the Bill becomes an Act in the form that we are suggesting and remains on the statute book, the liability will last. I hope that it will last for ever. I see no end to this protection against libel that is provided for a union and those who print and distribute election addresses.
Although the Bill is written in this way, it is open to a future Government to propose a change, and there is

nothing that I or any hon. Member could do about that. The intention is that indemnification should last for as long as the requirement to distribute the ballot papers.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 14

INDEPENDENT SCRUTINY OF CERTAIN BALLOTS AND ELECTIONS

Lords amendment: No. 19, in page 17, line 3, leave out from "person" to "are" in line 4 and insert
who supervises the production and distribution, for the purposes of the ballot or election, of all the voting papers and the person to whom those voting papers".

Mr. Cope: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
The amendment concerns scrutineers who are provided for in the Bill to supervise elections. The amendment represents a small tightening of the scrutiny provisions that we asked for in another place, which were agreed by Conservative peers; hence the amendment comes before us for consideration.
It should be apparent on the face of the Bill, if the Lords amendment is accepted, that the scrutineer is required to supervise production of voting papers and their dispatch. We were asked to go a little further than that and to insist that the scrutineer produced and dispatched the voting papers, but we thought it best to insert this provision. Unions will, therefore, be free to opt for the scrutineer to print and dispatch voting papers if they wish. If they choose instead to print and dispatch the papers themselves or ask someone else to do it, they will do so knowing that the scrutineer is required to supervise production and dispatch of voting papers and to report thereon to members of the union. The purpose is obviously to ensure that ballot papers sent out have not been tampered with, or that some arrangement has been made to affect the result of the ballot. I commend the amendment to the House.

Mr. Strang: There is much that some Opposition Members wish to say on these matters but because there are other important matters we shall not detain the House. It is unnecessary to stipulate these provisions in statute but I accept that where a scrutineer supervises or takes responsibility for ballot papers when those are returned, it is logical that he should supervise their production and distribution.

Question put and agreed to.

Lords amendment No. 19 agreed to.

Lords amendment: No. 20, in page 18, line 16, at end insert—
(8) Section 6A of the 1913 Act (application of sections 3 to 6 of that Act to employers' associations) shall apply to the provisions of this section, in so far as they relate to the requirements mentioned in subsection (1)(a) above, as it applies to sections 3 to 6 of, and the Schedule to that Act.".

Mr. Nicholls: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this we shall take Lords amendments Nos. 22, 35, 36 and 55.

Mr. Nicholls: These technical amendments are necessary for consistency with earlier legislation. The provision which presently governs political fund ballots contained in the Trade Union Acts of 1913 and 1984


applies to unincorporated employers' associations, as they apply to trades unions. These amendments ensure that clauses 14 and 15 of the Bill will apply similarly.
Amendment No. 55 to schedule 3 corrects an oversight in the drafting of the 1984 Act, which leaves trades unions and unincorporated employers' associations in a different position in one respect. The amendments will have no practical effect at present, as we know of no employers' association that currently maintains a political fund, or indeed has any intention to set one up.
Amendments Nos. 35 and 36 are technical, and are necessary to ensure that all legislative provisions in relation to political funds are consistent in their application to Northern Ireland. Their effect will be that the provisions of the Bill relating to political funds will extend to Northern Ireland, but will not apply, like present legislation, to any trades union or unincorporated employers' association that has its head office, or main office, in Northern Ireland.

Mr. Allen: It would be remiss of me to let the clause go without putting on record the congratulations of the Opposition, and we hope also of Conservative Members, to the Institute of Professional Civil Servants on setting up its political fund a few weeks ago.

Question put and agreed to.

Lords amendments Nos. 21 to 23 agreed to.

Clause 16

BALLOTS ON INDUSTRIAL ACTION AFFECTING DIFFERENT PLACES OF WORK

Lords amendment: No 24, in page 19, line 39, leave out "some or all" and insert "one or more".

Mr. Nicholls: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this we shall take Lords amendments Nos. 25 and 26.

Mr. Nicholls: This amendment was tabled by noble Lords from the Opposition Benches. It was readily accepted by the Government. The objective of the clause is to ensure that separate place-of-work ballots are held, except in circumstances where all the members whose votes are to be aggregated across different places of work share one or more common distinguishing characteristic.
When the clause left this House, the exception was limited to circumstances where a group sharing such a factor or factors consisted of at least three people. However, there is no justification for excluding the circumstances where a group consists of only two members. The amendment addresses this point.
Amendments Nos. 25 and 26 were tabled by Opposition peers and were accepted by the Government, albeit with one minor drafting change. In practice the only change in the clause as it stood before these amendments were devised is to allow a ballot to be aggregated across two or more employers if there is a common and appropriate factor that applies to only one voter, and to non-voters at one employer but is shared with no voters at a second employer.
When the Government tabled amendments to the clause at the Commons Report stage it was with the intention of enabling aggregation of ballot votes across

different places of work, to cover the situation of various types of bargaining groups. It is possible to envisage a bargaining group in the case that I have just described. The Government therefore accepted a change in the clause that allowed an exception in such a case to the requirement for separate place-of-work ballots. I therefore hope that the amendment commends itself to the Opposition and to the House.

Mr. Strang: We made clear on Report and in Committee that we regard this clause as a complex imposition that employers will have great difficulty in understanding. It will certainly not add to good industrial relations in this country. But, as the Minister says, these are minor amendments and we do not wish to detain the House on them.

Mr. Jonathan Sayeed: I should be grateful if my hon. Friend could help me with one point. In the case of the National Union of Seamen, as my hon. Friend will be aware, ballots could take place on ships overseas. It is possible that the results of those ballots will not get back to the NUS in time. The consequence of that is that those working in home waters on ferries are in a particularly advantageous position and the NUS could follow their wishes rather than those working in deep sea waters or abroad. Will the clause deal adequately with the replacement ballot, and the time in which it will be conducted?

Mr. Nicholls: This part of the Bill will not be dealing with the time in which a ballot takes place. As the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Strang) has said, this is by no means an easy read. Having said that, I hope that those who have studied it in Committee, and other interests elsewhere, agree that, although the clause is difficult to read, it is at least better than it was. I recollect that in Committee there was some debate about whether, for the purposes of the definition of a place of work, which is relevant to the construction of the clause, a ship could be considered as premises. I recall that I or my hon. Friend the Minister of State, pointed out that a ship was not to be taken as a place of work in those circumstances.
If my hon. Friend has in mind the possibility of timing and matters of that sort, they would not strictly fall to be considered under this clause.

Question put and agreed to.

Lords amendments Nos. 25 to 27 agreed to.

Clause 20

PROVISIONS SUPPLEMENTAL TO SECTION 19

Lords amendment: No. 28, in page 23, line 5, at end insert—
(1A) Where the Commissioner provides assistance under section 19 above in relation to any proceedings, it shall be his duty to do so on such terms, or to make such other arrangements, as will secure that any person against whom those proceedings have been or are commenced is informed that assistance has been or is being provided by the Commissioner in relation to the proceedings.

Mr. Nicholls: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to consider sub-amendment (a), and Lords amendments Nos. 29 and 30. I understand that the Opposition may wish to


divide on sub-amendment (a), so I shall call the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Strang) to speak to that amendment.

Mr. Strang: I have to make it clear that Lords amendment No. 28 was moved in the House of Lords by the Government in response to an undertaking that the Minister gave in Committee. That undertaking related to the circumstances where the commissioner for trade union members had given, or was about to give, assistance to a trade union member. We argued, convincingly I think, that it was only reasonable that a trade union should know whether a trade unionist taking the union to court was being supported in that way. Obviously, that would be a substantial consideration in terms of the advice and funding that the trade unionist would receive from the commissioner.
In such circumstances the trade union might decide to adopt a different tack and perhaps be more conciliatory. Alternatively, the effect may be the opposite. Nevertheless, the principle is valid and the Government accepted the principle. It is fair to say that the Minister acknowledged that the argument was valid in relation to legal aid and that it was hard to see why, if someone was advised that a person was in receipt of legal aid in proceedings to which he was a party, a trade union should not be advised that a trade unionist was receiving assistance in a case to which the trade union was a party.
What is wholly unsatisfactory about the Lords amendment is that it enables the commissioner to advise a trade union after the proceedings have been commenced. We do not believe that that does justice to the undertaking that the Government gave us. I am not suggesting that this is a deliberate failure to implement the undertaking. However, the whole point of the undertaking was that the trade union would be given notice in advance of the proceedings getting under way.
Instead of the words
against whom those proceedings have been or are commenced
the amendment should read
against whom those proceedings are to be commenced
We obtained very few concessions from the Government in Committee and the one or two concessions that have been achieved, either in response to promises in Committee or as a result of changes in the other place, have been minor. It is rather unfortunate, to put it mildly, that they have failed to do justice to the undertaking they gave in this context in Committee.

Mr. Nicholls: The hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Strang) may be doing himself less than justice by saying that he did not receive many concessions from us. I remember that he and his hon. Friends made several points very well and we did agree to make concessions. The hon. Gentleman is right to say that when he put this point to me in Committee he was pushing at an open door. I hope that he will not think that I am sliding away from the point and, if he does, I will slide straight back in a moment. However, there are obvious parallels between the commissioner's assistance and that provided by the legal aid fund. Of course, there are obvious dissimilarities as well because, as with all analogies, they are not exact. As I have said, the hon. Gentleman was pushing against an open door and, perhaps because the analogies are not

exact, I was not able to come up with something there and then to what may seem a fairly straightforward point. That is indicative of the fact that perhaps it was not quite as easy as we would have liked.
The amendment places a duty on the commissioner, where he provides assistance in relation to proceedings, to do so on terms or make other arrangements that will ensure that any person against whom those proceedings have been or are commenced is informed of that assistance. However, if one were to say that the notification should take place at the moment proceedings were instituted, that would raise all sorts of difficulties, such as what would happen if that moment was missed. What would the consequences of that be?
In our amendment we have tried to ensure that if a trade union is up against a person with the commissioner's assistance, it should know about that. That obligation will be imposed by the commissioner on the assisted person to make absolutely certain that notification is given.
I understand the terms in which the hon. Gentleman tabled the Opposition's amendment (a). However, the Lords amendment makes it clear that the duty to inform will apply when the assisted person becomes party to the proceedings or when the commissioner's assistance is granted if a person is already a party to the proceedings at that time. That is an important point. It is up to the commissioner to specify any details about the timing of the notification in the terms on which his assistance is granted or to determine the timing in the arrangements he makes. In practice, it can be expected that parties against whom proceedings are taken will be informed of the commissioner's assistance when the proceedings are instituted. As I have said, that would not be possible if they began before he gave his assistance.
The Opposition's amendment would mean that notification would have to be given before proceedings began. It fails to deal with the case where proceedings start before any assistance is given. For that reason, the amendment is undesirable.
I do not want to go over the ground that was covered in Committee. However, the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East will recall that when it was put to me and to my hon. Friend the Minister that notification of the commissioner's assistance should be given as soon as that assistance was available, we resisted that.
We believe that the Lords amendment ensures that if a trade union finds that action is being taken against it by John Smith and that John Smith has the full weight of the commissioner by his side, the union should know about that. Although that may not have been achieved in the way that the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East would have liked, his justified and evident concerns are met by the amendment.

Mr. Strang: We are not satisfied with that. The amendment is a step in the right direction but, leaving aside the detailed wording of our amendment, we intend to force a vote. We shall do so if only to demonstrate our view that the commissioner should bend over backwards to ensure that the trade union is advised as early as possible that he is providing assistance to one of the union's members.

Mr. Clelland: It seems entirely unreasonable that, when a trade union is to have proceedings instituted against it, it should be informed in retrospect that the commissioner


is to assist those taking the proceedings. We object in principle to the commissioner. I pointed out in Committee, and I have mentioned again today, that the installation of a commissioner of this sort is contrary to the Government's attitude towards the legal aid system where considerable savings—about £10 million a year—are being made. I can think of a number of people living in my constituency who have been rejected when applying for legal aid for legitimate cases purely on the ground that the compensation that would result from a successful case would not be sufficient. Yet here we have circumstances in which a union member can take what might be considered to be a frivolous action against a trade union and may be supported through a sort of legal aid system by a commissioner. Also, the proceedings can begin before the trade union is informed that that is to be the case.
By the production of the Bill, the Government have already displayed their antipathy towards trade unions. Surely the legal system that is to apply to the Bill should be fair to both sides. The Government lean over backwards to assist anyone who wants to frustrate a trade union in its activities or its organisation or to take a trade union to court. Such a person will be given financial assistance and all sorts of legal advice. At the same time, the trade union is to be disadvantaged, not only in this clause but in other clauses of the Bill, by not being told until after the commencement of proceedings that the commissioner is to support the person taking the union to court.
8 pm
If the Government want to continue this charade that they are being fair to both sides—we keep hearing from the Minister that the Government are only trying to be fair to trade unions—they ought to accept our amendment. After all, trade unions are not bodies that stand aloof from their members. The trade union consists of its members and they will be disadvantaged for the advantage of a single rebellious member who, for his own reasons, might want to engage his trade union in court proceedings.
We feel that the Minister has not gone far enough to explain why trade unions are to be disadvantaged in this way and that the Government ought to give more consideration to our very reasonable amendment.

Mr. McLeish: I endorse the sentiments expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Tyne Bridge (Mr. Clelland). It was widely felt in Committee that many of the suggestions and provisions in the Bill were in some respects quite incredible, in the proper sense of that word. We find it quite alarming that the Government should have suggested that they are tidying up certain provisions when we are faced with amendments that seek to further the attack on trade unions and put them at a disadvantage in the workplace in relation to any action that might be taken in which the commissioner is involved.
It may seem strange that the House may divide on this amendment, but, while the words are only three in number, it provides a significant insight into how the Government view the question of trade union reform. Essentially, we are seeking to ensure that there is an element of natural justice. There can be few situations in which a person—in this case a trade union—can have an action taken against him but not be informed of it until the action is started. My hon. Friend made the analogy with

the legal aid system. It certainly seems inappropriate, even in such an odious Bill as this, to turn the issue of natural justice on its head.
Why on earth cannot the Government accept the reasonable, common-sense view that a person has a right to be informed before an action is started against him? This is the essential point about which we are concerned, and it seems right that we should divide on such an important issue.
My hon. Friend the Member for Tyne Bridge referred to the question of the commissioner and the clauses in the Bill that deal with his activities. We were opposed to these provisions in Committee and we remain concerned about them. That concern turned to anger when we absorbed the content of the Lords amendment, and we had to respond by putting forward our own change of words.
The discussion this evening has highlighted the continuing smokescreen that the Government seek to put up. The Government would like to convey to the nation that these are moderate, sensible reforms which bring trade unions to book in the interests of their members. There could be a debate nationally on that issue. Where there can be no debate, and where Parliament could be brought into disrepute, is when we are discussing issues in the Bill in terms of Lords amendments and our amendments in which the very nature of the right to know and of natural justice is being threatened by a Government who constantly wax eloquent about the rights of individuals and, in this case, the right of a person acting on behalf of the trade union.
I believe that we are right to divide on our amendment. I support my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Strang) in this commitment. It is wholly ridiculous that a Bill can come back from the Lords in a much worse state than it was in when it went to the Upper House. I shall support the amendment.

Mr. Allen: This item within this clause is a particularly obnoxious piece of legislation, and the way that it has been brought from the Lords has made it even worse. Many of my hon. Friends were very concerned in Committee about the way that this came into being, and my hon. Friend the Member for Ashfield (Mr. Haynes) made some extremely forceful interventions on this point. We are very sad that the Lords have not done the job that the Upper House is there to do—improve the legislation rather than send it back to this House in an even worse condition.
One of the major problems that we highlighted in this area of concern related to the certification officer, who has performed his duties admirably over a number of years. I say that having had some dealings with him. In creating a trade union commissar in complete opposition to that certification officer, we may find that neither function is performed adequately or properly. The great attribute of the certification officer was that, despite the ups and downs that there are always in negotiations and discussions between trade unions and semi-state authorities such as the certification officer, he had won some respect for a certain degree of neutrality. Now we are seeing as a result of this amendment a trade union commissar to assist individual trade union members to take action against their own unions, and one whose neutrality, I suspect, will not be beyond doubt. It is an unfortunate thing to say, but I believe that it needs to be put on record. I do not believe that the majority of trade unionists will receive the news of a trade union commissar with anything other than great


shame and suspicion. The trade union commissar will be seen as part of the whole package of legislative reforms drafted by this Government.

Mr. Holt: The hon. Gentleman referred to the commissioner as if he were a single individual. I draw his attention to the schedule, which says that we are talking about a commissioner in posts and that there are to be six commissioners, apart from 75 posts for certification officers. So we are not talking about one man and his views; we are talking about an army of bureaucrats.

Mr. Allen: I am very grateful for that intervention; it is most helpful. It is in the same way that many of us look at the certification office. There is the certification office, but there are a number of individuals working there and only rarely does the senior person get involved. The trade union commissar will operate on the same basis and, referring further to that schedule, the amount that will be expended on this office will be £1·5 million in the first year. In each of the following two years, it will be £1·7 million. The problem is that there will be pressure on the office, in these times of tight public expenditure, to justify its existence. It will have to keep coming forward with new cases, inciting and inspiring individual trade unionists to take up cases, even when they may not be cast iron cases. They may be cases that the court, in the first instance, or the certification officer will refuse to entertain. Under the new agency system in the Civil Service, a person may feel that there must be payment by results, otherwise the £1·7 million may be cut off.

Mr. Winnick: As to whether there is to be one or half a dozen trade union commissars, does my hon. Friend agree that it would be a good idea if one of the people appointed were to be Mr. Eric Chalker, who for some time has been campaigning for democracy in the Tory party? If he were appointed, he would see that trade unions are 100 times more democratic than the Tory party.

Mr. Allen: Mr. Chalker would probably be one of the first people under the hammer of the commissar.
As we often said in Committee, the trade union movement needs no lectures from the Conservative party, which denied the vote to working people. The majority of people in this country did not have the vote until 60 or 70 years ago, mainly because of the Conservative party's inability to extend the franchise. At that time, the Labour party was creating the democratic trade union movement—well in advance of the extension of the franchise that was grudgingly given to people to elect Governments.
My hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) will be aware that a book has been opened on who will be the first trade union commissar. The running was between David Hart, the Secretary of State for Social Services, who was going through a particularly bad time some time ago, Frank Chapple, who was quoted at fairly long odds, and, coming up on the rails, Sir Ian MacGregor.

Mr. Winnick: What about the right hon. and learned Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Brittan)?

Mr. Allen: I understand from the agitation that is being transmitted that perhaps enough has been said about this matter.

Mr. Nicholls: After such a fascinating debate, it would be churlish of me not to reply.
I do not think that I can do anything to assure the hon. Member for Tyne Bridge (Mr. Clelland) about our intentions. For reasons that I have never been able to work out, he seems to suspect the worst of us. Bearing in mind the similarity of our constituencies' names, I hope that one day he will agree to pair with me.
In one sense, I should like to take the hon. Member for Fife, Central (Mr. McLeish) with me. It is one thing to be criticised for not making concessions, but, having made one, to be criticised for doing so seems harsh, even in a harsh profession. The hon. Gentleman said that his objection to the Lords amendment was based on the fact that if one is about to be sued one should know who is standing behind it. In asking for that he is asking for more than the legal aid system provides. It is possible for a person to be legally aided for months before he institutes proceedings. His solicitor is under no obligation to file a notice of issue of civil aid certificate until proceedings are instituted. We impose an obligation on the commissioner to ensure that the trade union knows who it is up against. The hon. Gentleman is being too suspicious in thinking that there is something doubtful about the fact that we cannot frame this legislation in precisely the same terms as the parallel system.

Mr. McLeish: Why can it not be before rather than after?

Mr. Nicholls: For the reasons that were canvassed in Committee. A person may go to the commissioner with a grievance that could be cleared in an initial interview. The commissioner may be able to make inquiries, do a little leg work and say to the member, "This is not worth while." It would not be useful if the moment the person went through a door the commissioner said, " Nice to see you; let me assist you. I shall just phone the union and say what I am up to."
My hon. Friend the Member for Langbaurgh (Mr. Holt) foresees a commissioner, son of commissioner and commissioners being spawned. If he reads the Bill he will see that the commissioner will have a staff, which is all that this provision relates to. The idea at present is that there should be one commissioner, who should have a staff.

Mr. Holt: I recommend that my hon. Friend looks at the debates that preceded the introduction of industrial tribunals. He will see that the tribunals were intended to be swift, non-bureaucratic and non-legalistic. It was intended that they would be based on the common sense of those who worked in the industry. What has happened in reality is that if one is fired from one's job one is lucky to get before an industrial tribunal in under 15 months. If one does not take a barrister, one will lose.

Mr. Nicholls: One could possibly take a good solicitor, but I do not want to be accused of touting.
In any judicial system there is always a possibility that it will not work as fast as one would like. My hon. Friend is concerned about the initial intention that tribunals should be as simple as possible, which is a laudable aim. Perhaps his experience in this regard is greater than mine, but industrial tribunals provide a more streamlined and simple service than the courts. However, it is not the sort


of process that might take place under a palm tree somewhere. I assure my hon. Friend that there will be only one commissioner.
I hope that the hon. Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen) will not think it unkind if I say that I have heard his speech many times before, and will probably hear it again. He made the wild allegation that, even before a public official is appointed, he is satisfied that that public official will not act in a way that preserves his neutrality. There will be a number of sectors in which the commissioner will be entitled to intervene. He will not be under an obligation to do so, but he will be entitled to intervene. If the commissioner's track record were that he was taking every crackpot, hare-brained case to court, the hon. Gentleman would have had the best of the argument. Having listened to his speech many times—I do not commend a reading of the hon. Gentleman's speeches to anybody—I cannot accept that he is on to a winner. He based his argument on saying that a public official yet to be appointed will act in a partial way.
Amendment (a) proposed to the Lords amendment, in line 5, leave out 'have been or are' and insert 'are to be'.—[Mr. Strang.]

Question put, That the amendment to the Lords amendment be made—

The House divided: Ayes 179, Noes 220.

Division No. 325]
[8.18 pm


AYES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)


Adams, Allen (Paisley N)
Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H'l)


Allen, Graham
Dixon, Don


Anderson, Donald
Doran, Frank


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Duffy, A. E. P.


Armstrong, Hilary
Dunnachie, Jimmy


Ashton, Joe
Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth


Barnes, Harry [Derbyshire NE)
Eadie, Alexander


Barron, Kevin
Evans, John (St Helens N)


Battle, John
Field, Frank (Birkenhead)


Beckett, Margaret
Fields, Terry (L'pool B G'n)


Beith, A. J.
Fisher, Mark


Bell, Stuart
Flannery, Martin


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Flynn, Paul


Bermingham, Gerald
Foot, Rt Hon Michael


Bidwell, Sydney
Foster, Derek


Blair, Tony
Foulkes, George


Blunkett, David
Fraser, John


Boateng, Paul
Galbraith, Sam


Bradley, Keith
Garrett, John (Norwich South)


Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)
George, Bruce


Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)
Godman, Dr Norman A.


Brown, Ron (Edinburgh Leith)
Gordon, Mildred


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Gould, Bryan


Buchan, Norman
Graham, Thomas


Buckley, George J.
Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)


Caborn, Richard
Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)


Callaghan, Jim
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Grocott, Bruce


Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)
Hardy, Peter


Campbell-Savours, D. N.
Haynes, Frank


Canavan, Dennis
Healey, Rt Hon Denis


Clark, Dr David (S Shields)
Henderson, Doug


Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)
Hogg, N. (C'nauld &amp; Kilsyth)


Clay, Bob
Holland, Stuart


Clelland, David
Home Robertson, John


Coleman, Donald
Hood, Jimmy


Corbett, Robin
Howarth, George (Knowsley N)


Cousins, Jim
Howells, Geraint


Cox, Tom
Hughes, John (Coventry NE)


Cryer, Bob
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Hughes, Roy (Newport E)


Dalyell, Tam
Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)


Darling, Alistair
Illsley, Eric


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)
Ingram, Adam





Janner, Greville
Prescott, John


John, Brynmor
Quin, Ms Joyce


Jones, Barry (Alyn &amp; Deeside)
Radice, Giles


Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)
Redmond, Martin


Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Reid, Dr John


Kirkwood, Archy
Richardson, Jo


Lambie, David
Robertson, George


Lamond, James
Robinson, Geoffrey


Leighton, Ron
Rogers, Allan


Lestor, Joan (Eccles)
Rooker, Jeff


Lewis, Terry
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)


Litherland, Robert
Rowlands, Ted


Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)
Ruddock, Joan


Lofthouse, Geoffrey
Salmond, Alex


Loyden, Eddie
Sedgemore, Brian


McAllion, John
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


McAvoy, Thomas
Short, Clare


McCartney, Ian
Skinner, Dennis


Macdonald, Calum A.
Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)


McFall, John
Smith, C. (Isl'ton &amp; F'bury)


McLeish, Henry
Smith, Rt Hon J. (Monk'ds E)


McNamara, Kevin
Snape, Peter


McTaggart, Bob
Soley, Clive


McWilliam, John
Spearing, Nigel


Madden, Max
Steinberg, Gerry


Marek, Dr John
Stott, Roger


Marshall, David (Shettleston)
Strang, Gavin


Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Martlew, Eric
Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)


Maxton, John
Turner, Dennis


Meale, Alan
Wall, Pat


Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)
Wallace, James


Moonie, Dr Lewis
Walley, Joan


Morgan, Rhodri
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


Morley, Elliott
Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)


Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)
Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)


Mowlam, Marjorie
Williams, Rt Hon Alan


Mullin, Chris
Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)


Murphy, Paul
Wilson, Brian


Nellist, Dave
Winnick, David


Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon
Worthington, Tony


O'Brien, William
Young, David (Bolton SE)


O'Neill, Martin



Orme, Rt Hon Stanley
Tellers for the Ayes:


Patchett, Terry
Mr. Frank Cook and


Pike, Peter L.
 Mr. Ken Eastham.


Powell, Ray (Ogmore)





NOES


Alexander, Richard
Brown, Michael (Brigg &amp; Cl't's)


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)


Allason, Rupert
Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon Alick


Amess, David
Buck, Sir Antony


Amos, Alan
Budgen, Nicholas


Arbuthnot, James
Burns, Simon


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Butcher, John


Ashby, David
Butler, Chris


Atkins, Robert
Butterfill, John


Atkinson, David
Carlisle, John, (Luton N)


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)
Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)


Batiste, Spencer
Carrington, Matthew


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Cash, William


Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Chapman, Sydney


Bevan, David Gilroy
Chope, Christopher


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)


Biggs-Davison, Sir John
Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)


Blackburn, Dr John G.
Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)


Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Conway, Derek


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Coombs, Simon (Swindon)


Boswell, Tim
Cope, John


Bottomley, Peter
Couchman, James


Bottomley, Mrs Virginia
Cran, James


Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)
Currie, Mrs Edwina


Bowis, John
Curry, David


Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes
Davies, Q. (Stamf'd &amp; Spald'g)


Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard
Davis, David (Boothferry)


Brandon-Bravo, Martin
Day, Stephen


Brazier, Julian
Dickens, Geoffrey


Bright, Graham
Dicks, Terry






Dorrell, Stephen
Morris, M (N'hampton S)


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Moss, Malcolm


Dover, Den
Mudd, David


Durant, Tony
Neale, Gerrard


Dykes, Hugh
Nelson, Anthony


Emery, Sir Peter
Neubert, Michael


Evennett, David
Newton, Rt Hon Tony


Fallon, Michael
Nicholls, Patrick


Favell, Tony
Nicholson, David (Taunton)


Fenner, Dame Peggy
Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)


Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)
Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley


Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey
Oppenheim, Phillip


Fookes, Miss Janet
Page, Richard


Forman, Nigel
Paice, James


Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
Patten, Chris (Bath)


Forth, Eric
Pawsey, James


Fowler, Rt Hon Norman
Porter, David (Waveney)


Fox, Sir Marcus
Portillo, Michael


Franks, Cecil
Powell, William (Corby)


Freeman, Roger
Price, Sir David


French, Douglas
Raison, Rt Hon Timothy


Fry, Peter
Rathbone, Tim


Gale, Roger
Redwood, John


Gardiner, George
Rhodes James, Robert


Gorman, Mrs Teresa
Riddick, Graham


Gow, Ian
Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas


Gower, Sir Raymond
Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)


Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)
Roe, Mrs Marion


Greenway, John (Ryedale)
Rost, Peter


Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)
Rumbold, Mrs Angela


Grist, Ian
Sackville, Hon Tom


Ground, Patrick
Sayeed, Jonathan


Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)
Shaw, David (Dover)


Hannam, John
Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)


Hargreaves, A. (B'ham H'll Gr')
Shelton, William (Streatham)


Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)
Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)


Harris, David
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Hawkins, Christopher
Sims, Roger


Hayes, Jerry
Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)


Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Heathcoat-Amory, David
Speed, Keith


Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)
Speller, Tony


Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


Hill, James
Steen, Anthony


Hind, Kenneth
Stern, Michael


Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)
Stevens, Lewis


Holt, Richard
Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)


Howarth, Alan (Strat'd-on-A)
Stokes, John


Howarth, G. (Cannock &amp; B'wd)
Stradling Thomas, Sir John


Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)
Summerson, Hugo


Hunt, David (Wirral W)
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Irvine, Michael
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Jack, Michael
Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)


Janman, Tim
Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman


Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey
Temple-Morris, Peter


Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)


Jones, Robert B (Herts W)
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine
Thorne, Neil


Key, Robert
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Kilfedder, James
Twinn, Dr Ian


Knight, Greg (Derby North)
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Latham, Michael
Waddington, Rt Hon David


Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark
Walden, George


Lightbown, David
Walker, Bill (T'side North)


Lilley, Peter
Ward, John


McCrindle, Robert
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Macfarlane, Sir Neil
Watts, John


Maclean, David
Wheeler, John


McLoughlin, Patrick
Whitney, Ray


Major, Rt Hon John
Widdecombe, Ann


Mans, Keith
Wiggin, Jerry


Maples, John
Wilkinson, John


Martin, David (Portsmouth S)
Wilshire, David


Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Winterton, Mrs Ann


Mills, Iain
Winterton, Nicholas


Miscampbell, Norman
Wolfson, Mark


Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)
Wood, Timothy





Woodcock, Mike
Tellers for the Noes:


Young, Sir George (Acton)
Mr. Peter Lloyd and



 Mr. Richard Ryder.

Question accordingly negatived.

Lords amendment agreed to.

Lords amendments Nos. 29 and 30 agreed to, some with special entry.

Clause 21

PROCEDURE BEFORE THE CERTIFICATION OFFICER

Lords amendment: No. 31, in page 23, line 33, at end insert
; and, without prejudice to the generality of the power conferred by this subsection, the provision made by the Certification Officer in exercise of that power shall include such provision as he considers appropriate for restricting the circumstances in which the identity of an individual who has made, or is proposing to make, any such application or complaint is disclosed to any person.

Mr. Nicholls: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
The amendment allows the certification officer, in regulating his procedure, to include such provisions as he considers appropriate for restricting the circumstances in which the identity of any union member who approaches him is disclosed to any person. It thus permits the certification officer to continue to fulfil his functions with a workable and self-regulated method of restricting the circumstances in which the complainant's or applicant's identity is disclosed.
Union members should certainly not be put off from making complaints about a breach of statutory duty by the union and taking them up with the certification officer because they fear the consequences to themselves of doing so. The amendment assures an applicant that a certification officer can, where appropriate, take steps to prevent his identity being revealed, so far as this is consistent with the proper pursuit of the complaint. Clause 3 may also be expected to help, because it provides that union discipline imposed because of assertions by a union member in taking a complaint to the certification officer about his union would be unjustified discipline. The amendment reaffirms the Government's commitment to a union member's right to pursue effectively complaints about his union denying his statutory right, and I commend it to the House.

Mr. Strang: We see no justification for the amendment. The certification officer is a public appointment, and if people raise matters with him, or if he acts on their behalf, I see no reason why that should be kept secret. I do not believe that there is any evidence that trade union members have been, or are likely to be, deterred from taking up matters with the certification officer on the ground that it may be to their disadvantage if the matter becomes publicly known within the union.
We do not propose to make a major issue of this amendment, because other important matters remain to be discussed. Nevertheless, we believe that it is uncalled for, and nothing that the Minister has said this evening has convinced us that it is necessary.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 24

FUNCTIONS OF THE SECRETARY OF STATE AND OF THE COMMISSION

Lords amendment: No. 32, in page 24, line 45, leave out from "opportunities" to end of line 46 and insert
for employment and training that are available to women and girls or to disabled persons;

Mr. Fowler: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
The Government have reconsidered whether the Bill should explicitly mention disabled people. The Bill already contains specific provision for disabled people, through the requirement to help people train for employment suitable for their ages and capacities. The amendment emphasises that duty and I believe that it will be an encouragement to disabled people.
All the major programmes of the Manpower Services Commission make special provision for the disabled. The entry rules for the youth training scheme are slightly relaxed for disabled people so that they can enter up to the age of 21, as opposed to 17 for the able-bodied, and if they need more time at school, similar help is given. The disabled may also be given extra assessment and up to six months extra on YTS. We provide permanent additional funding for YTS for managing agents to take on disabled young people who need extra training. Furthermore, under employment training, the new adult training programme, the normal entry rules will also be relaxed for disabled people so that any disabled person can enter the scheme, whereas the able-bodied will normally have to be unemployed for six months. There will be special financial assistance for training disabled people, just as there is with YTS.
I hope that I have said enough to establish that we believe that this is an important amendment which underlines our commitment to disabled people.

Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Bothroyd): I should inform the House that the amendment involves privilege.

Ms. Clare Short: The amendment concedes a point that we pressed in Committee, and to that extent it is welcome. It modifies the powers that the Secretary of State has taken to himself—powers that used to belong to the Manpower Services Commission—to make arrangements for training. Under those powers the MSC could, and the Secretary of State can, make special arrangements for encouraging increases in the opportunities available for women and girls for employment and training.
In Committee we argued strongly that, although women and girls have special needs as they are disadvantaged in the labour market and in their access to training, people with disabilities and people from the ethnic minorities have similar needs. We tabled amendments to include in the provision those with disabilities and the ethnic minorities. Pressure was repeatedly resisted. It seems that when the Bill reached the other place the Government were persuaded that there was a need to make special provision for people with disabilities. Perhaps they were shamed into it. However, that makes it all the more outrageous that the Government have made no such concession in respect of the ethnic minorities.
We all know that ethnic minorities suffer from discrimination in the job market. Various studies published by the Minister's Department show that young people with equal qualifications have to apply much more often for jobs if they are black and are much more likely to be unemployed. Furthermore, because of the nature of the migration of a large part of Britain's black population, the working population is disproportionately unskilled and in need of access to training. It is conspicuous that the Government have conceded the need to make special provision for people with disabilities, but are unwilling to concede the point on ethnic minorities. It seems to me that their prejudices are showing clearly.
The Minister touched on the special provision in the youth training scheme and to be made in the adult training scheme. Will he clarify the special arrangements to he made for women, girls and the disabled under this scheme? We are all aware that the Secretary of State recently wrote to the TUC, the National Council for Voluntary Organisations and the Association of Metropolitan Authorities to make all sorts of new arrangements for the scheme that he plans to launch in September under the Bill. It is notable that there has been no announcement to the House and that we have not had a chance to comment on those changes. We know from the right hon. Gentleman's letter that he has provided for disabled people to go on his new scheme without having been registered as unemployed for six months.
The right hon. Gentleman will know, and I certainly know—I have written to Ministers in his Department about it—that many of the existing schemes that provide for disabled people have additional provisions. They are allowed to have more staff than the average scheme, because often the needs of people with more severe disabilities call for a larger number of staff. I should like to know whether there will be additional resources, exactly what they will be, and whether disabled people on the schemes will be allowed to stay on for longer than others might be.
What special arrangements has the Secretary of State in mind for women and girls? The community programme, which is to be brought to an end in September, contained special provisions which meant that women and girls were under-privileged. The Government deliberately brought in a rule that said that only those who were in receipt of benefit could have access to places on the scheme. Overnight, that massively reduced the number of women who were eligible to go on the scheme, although in the past they had only to show that they had previously been employed and had become long-term unemployed. However, that no longer mattered. It was only if they were in receipt of benefits that they were entitled to go on the community programme. That had nothing to do with the special needs of women and girls for access to temporary employment or training. It was because the Government were determined to use the scheme to reduce the unemployment figures and could not bear it if some women managed to get on the schemes and were no longer represented in the unemployment figures. The unemployment figures now are simply a count of those who are entitled to benefit, and are no longer a count of people who are available for employment.
Under the new scheme, which is based on a benefit plus regime, my understanding is that a small number of women will be allowed to take places on the scheme. However, as they are not in receipt of benefit, they will


receive only £10 a week for a full week's work. That is the kind of special arrangement to meet the special needs of women and girls that the Secretary of State is proposing to make under these powers and his scheme.
Even worse, and even more misleading, the Secretary of State has trumpeted the provision in his new scheme that there is to be an allowance of up to £50 a week for single women who have child caring needs, so that they can go on the scheme. However, when we look at the details of what the Secretary of State is offering, we realise that this is a complete and absolute con. I am sorry to say that, because there is a massive need for women who are responsible for child care to be able to gain access to training. The Secretary of State is misleading the population in suggesting that he is making such arrangements.
The women who will be eligible for this child care allowance under his scheme will be those who have signed on for at least six months as being available for work. However, under the new availability for work test, those who claim to be available for work have to show, if they care for dependants—children, elderly or disabled relatives—that they can make themselves available within 24 hours to take up work. A single parent who has responsibility for child care and is in need of the £50 a week allowance provided by the training scheme to provide for child care cannot possibly prove that she is available for work and can make alternative arrangements for her children within 24 hours. Therefore, any woman who seeks to take advantage of this great privilege that the Secretary of State keeps telling us about is likely to be found to be unavailable for work, and by seeking to sign on in order to make herself eligible is in danger of becoming ineligible for benefit.
8.45 pm
The Secretary of State has told the TUC, the AMA and the NCVO—but not the House of Commons—in a letter that he wrote yesterday that another major concession that he intends to make to women is that those who have not been signed on as available for work because they have responsibilities for child care will be able to take advantage of the £50 a week child care allowance if their children are all at school and of school age. Is this a major concession? The major need for child care support is for parents with children under five—but they are not to qualify. The Secretary of State has presumably made a judgment that women with children under five should not seek to participate in his training scheme. Therefore, only those who have children at school will be able to apply for the special allowance.
The arrangements that the Secretary of State is making under this provision of the Bill are a cosmetic pretence to assist women to take up places on his inadequate training schemes, but in practice they will not benefit them at all. In fact, the overall arrangements, and the arrangements for the payment of money, mean that women will receive small amounts of money. They will receive no more than £10 a week for participating in this scheme and working for a full working week if they live with someone who is receiving the benefit.
As we have the Secretary of State here, and as this is our last chance to deal with the Bill, I ask him to clarify the Goverment's undertaking that the programme for these disadvantaged groups will be entirely voluntary. It is an

important undertaking that the Secretary of State has given to the TUC. He says that he has made it clear in the House that he does not intend to designate the employment training scheme for the purposes of section 20 of the Social Security Act 1975. Hon. Members will know that the Bill provides, in clause 26, that the Secretary of State can, whenever he so chooses, designate any scheme that he provides under its powers. Anyone who refuses a place, refuses to apply for a place or leaves early will be subject to benefit loss or benefit penalty for a period of six months. Once that is done, the scheme will in effect be compulsory.
The Secretary of State is telling the TUC and the world that the scheme will not be compulsory. In Committee we asked for an undertaking that the Government would never designate the new adult training scheme as compulsory under clause 26. The Secretary of State would not give that undertaking. All he would say—he said it repeatedly—was, "I have no plans to designate the scheme." We pointed out to him that the fact that he has no plans at present to do so does not mean that he might not make some plans in a week's time, a month's time or at an even later stage. We asked the Secretary of State specifically and repeatedly for that undertaking.
The final request that we put to the Secretary of State was for an undertaking that the Government would not designate the scheme under clause 26 in the lifetime of this Parliament. For the sake of clarification, I ask the Secretary of State to give us the undertaking that neither he nor any other representative of the Government who may hold his office will designate this new scheme under clause 26 in the lifetime of this Parliament. We shall then he sure that the Government are not playing games with words in the undertaking that the Secretary of State has given the TUC. I hope that he will agree to do that. If he does not, I think that we will be entitled to draw the conclusion that he is playing games with everyone in giving undertakings that the scheme will be voluntary, but giving the undertakings in carefully framed words in order to keep open the possibility of making it compulsory in the future, should he wish to do so. The Secretary of State would then tell us that he did not earlier have plans, but he has made the plans more recently.
We welcome the minor concession that is contained in this Lords amendment. It shows that the Secretary of State, under pressure from us and from the other place, has taken the power to make special provision for women and girls. We believe that his refusal to include ethnic minorities is a straight representation of the Government's prejudice when it comes to equal rights for ethnic minorities. This is deeply regrettable and it should be agreed by both sides of the House that everyone in our society deserves the chance of equal access to employment and training. The failure of the Government to take powers to make special provision for ethnic minorities is deplorable and sad.
What we know of the Government's actions under their power to make special provision for the needs of women and girls in employment and training—I refer to the arrangements that they made for the new wretched adult training scheme which is supposed to take effect in September—do not give us any confidence of any genuine commitment to advance the ability of women and girls to have access to training and to the employment market.

Mr. McLeish: I welcome the limited concession of Lords amendment No. 32. However, it is a pity that when the wider amendment was moved in Committee the Government comprehensively rejected the inclusion of a reference to substantial minorities and special groups.
I should like to refer to the disability aspect of the amendment. As my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Ms. Short) said, we deplore the exclusion of other special groups from the legislation, because it seems to us that much could be done to meet the employment and training needs of the community. Special efforts must be made for the disadvantaged and for groups which find it difficult to have equal access to the opportunities that most of the community both take for granted and have access to.
It is important to refer to clause 24 of the original Bill, which refers to encouraging the provision of increased employment and training opportunities for women, girls and disabled people. We would have been happier if it had referred not only to increases in opportunities but to improvements in those opportunities. If we have one clear worry about the Government's new training programme, the Bill and the amendment, it is about the lack of concern for equality. I am sure that when the Secretary of State replies he will deny that allegation.
I should like to relate the issue of equality to disabled people and to their lack of opportunities in the United Kingdom. A recent report by the National Audit Office was submitted to the Public Accounts Committee and then published. It was a fairly damning indictment of what the Manpower Services Commission is failing to do for the training and employment of disabled people. It highlighted the fact that the 3 per cent. quota scheme was being largely ignored by many employers and that the scheme could not be monitored effectively. The MSC and the Department of Employment conceded that it was a system which was in place and had remained there for a number of years, but which was largely ineffective in producing the right opportunities in the right place, at the right time, for many of the disabled in our community. The report also stated that in many respects there seemed to be a lack of commitment to and concern for such a vulnerable group. That was reinforced by the Cinderella approach taken to disabled people by the Department of Employment and the MSC.
The report also highlighted the fact that in 1988 we still have a system of sheltered workshops, some of which have not improved since the early war days. We are not, in any way, promoting the integration of disabled people on the scale that we should be. Through Remploy and sheltered workshops much fine work is being done, but it does not match the needs of the community or the needs of a dynamic and modern employment service in the latter part of the 20th century.
The National Audit Office report clearly confirmed that as a nation we are not doing enough for disabled people and that they are getting a raw deal, with little prospect of significant improvements at this stage. That reinforces the Lords judgment that they should include a special reference to disabled people in the amendment. While we criticise the Government for being grudging, our real desire is that they should take on board the Lords amendment—not only the wording of the legislation, but the spirit that is required to tackle what I believe to he urgent problems.
If we are looking for guidance, the same report highlighted the work of the sheltered placement scheme. This is a system by which the Government, local authorities and private sector sponsors provide employment opportunities for disabled people. The advantages of the programme are that it is well thought through, well funded and provides opportunities in industry and the public services that are far removed from the idea of shutting people away from the community by placing them in workshops where they cannot find the social harmonisation or integration that should underpin the system.
If the Government wish to take on board the spirit of the amendment and to develop it further, they should consider the sheltered placement scheme and combine two things in one programme. First, there should he proper employment opportunities—not make-believe or made-up jobs, but real jobs in the community. Secondly, they should provide training for disabled people and give them the security of a full-time post. The lives not only of able-bodied people but of people with disabilities would be much improved if they were in employment and had received training, rather than receiving training with little prospect of a proper job at the end of it, which is what many people on the community programme or the YTS suffer.
Disabled people are a special group and require special discrimination in their favour. They require many additional resources, which are not being made available at present. The figures for sheltered placements are encouraging and increasing, but they should be measured against the many registered disabled people at jobcentres and against the disabled people who are registered at jobcentres—that is a fine distinction. Many disabled people have little prospect of improving their position in society.
If the amendment is taken seriously, we can go forward. It would be a measure of the Government's commitment if, when replying to the debate, the Secretary of State gave some encouragement and assurances that that development will be tackled swiftly, building on the work of the report by the National Audit Office and on the work of the PAC.
It would be remiss of me not to mention another factor that affects disabled people. While the Government can say that unemployment is coming down—the facts speak for themselves and the numbers of people who are claimants are certainly being reduced, although we could have another debate about how that has been achieved—finding a job is especially difficult for disabled people at a time of mass unemployment. We should remember that 2·5 million people are still unemployed. It is difficult for disabled people to find work in a dynamic job market, but when 2.5 million people are unemployed, and when unemployment is reinforced geographically throughout the nation, their plight is worsened. I should like to think that the pressing problem of unemployment, which means that disabled people are crushed at the bottom of the pile, will be taken seriously and linked to positive aspects of Government policy on sheltered placements.
Disadvantage and disability are high on our political agenda. I should like to think that after a grudging acceptance in the Lords of the inclusion of disability we can at least say that that is included. As my hon. Friend the Member for Ladywood rightly said, other special groups have been excluded, so this is a step forward. However, it


is a step forward only if the Secretary of State and his Department respond positively. I am not talking only in terms of resources, because a positive response requires a top to bottom shift in the attitude of the MSC and the Department of Employment. Disability is too serious to continue to be ignored in the way in which successive Governments have ignored it. I look to the Secretary of State to say "Yes, we accept the inclusion, but, more important, we want to go forward to provide a change of attitude and resources."

Mr. Leighton: I add my welcome to this limited concession, which, as I understand it, means that disabled people can receive training without having been in receipt of unemployment benefit for the previous six months. This is a first-class idea, but, as my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Ms. Short) said, there is another group of people who are not physically disabled but have a disability in the labour market because they are single parents with young children. It is difficult for them to enter the labour market.
9 pm
In the new training scheme there is the interesting and welcome idea of a child care allowance. We must all consider more seriously the question of child care. My hon. Friend the Member for Ladywood said that there had been some movement on that issue, but, as I understand it, certainly in the pilot project areas, that allowance was available only to people who had been in receipt of unemployment benefit for the previous six months and, as a result of that, only about a dozen applications had been made in all the pilot project areas. The idea had, therefore, been a complete flop, as there had been no take-up. That was because people in those circumstances did not have an employment record, and had not been in receipt of unemployment benefit. They had not been able to qualify and were therefore in a Catch 22 situation. I should like to see that position altered, so that any single parent—they are primarily young women—would be in the same position as people with other disabilities and would qualify without having an employment record.
Ideally, we should work towards a consensus in the House on training. Every other country that I visit has a consensus. It is not seen as a matter of great controversy. It has been a matter of controversy in this country because the training and other special employment projects have been tailored to have a "register effect", to take people off the unemployment register and, effectively, to massage the unemployment figures. In other countries it is just as important to take people out of the welfare figures as it is to take them out of the unemployment figures, but in this country the unemployment figures are considered more politically sensitive. I hope, therefore, that we can make a change to the £50 allowance for single mothers, and I shall be pleased to hear the Secretary of State's comments on that.
I agreed with my hon. Friend the Member for Ladywood when she referred to the assurances that the scheme would be voluntary, as there are fears about that. I expect that the Secretary of State will say that the scheme is voluntary and that he does not intend to alter that. It must be voluntary at present, if only because there are insufficient places to offer everyone in the client group—as

there is, for example, in YTS. People fear that the new programme will not be a raving success and that the target figure of 600,000 will not be hit, and that if the scheme flops, as JTS did, compulsion will be exerted to bring people into the scheme. I am certain that the Secretary of State will say that those are base fears that should not be entertained, so I do not understand why he cannot say, certainly for the lifetime of this Parliament, that the scheme will be voluntary and that there is no question of it being designated under clause 26.
One attraction of that to the Minister is that it would not cost him any money. Some of the other suggestions that I should like to make would cost him money, but this would not cost a penny and, in many ways, would help to clear the air. Another way of making the new training scheme slightly more attractive, which again would not cost him any money, would be, if he could so arrange it, as with YTS or the community programme, for the allowance to be topped up by local authorities or employers. Many employers are not anxious to have industrial conscripts drafted into their plants and are willing to give a top up. However, as I understand it, anything over £5 is at present clawed back by the Department of Health and Social Security. That must be perverse. I cannot understand the advantage to the Government of that arrangement.
If we are to move to a benefit-plus arrangement rather than have some sort of rate for the job, which in itself is controversial enough, we should look at the amount of the premium. At the moment it is £10. The first £5 would go for travel, and that leaves just £5. The cost of being at work is more than staying at home so there is not much plus at all above the benefit. The Government should double the amount of the plus above benefit. I understand that that would cost £180 million, but that is not a very large sum of money and I do not see why we should spoil the ship for a ha'porth of tar.
It might be some consolation to the Secretary of State to know that last year the class 5 vote was underspent by £178 million. That means that he already has the money for one year. In the following year it might be an extra charge to the Treasury. However, if it is difficult to fill the 600,000 places, there could be slightly fewer people on the scheme and the cost to the Treasury would be reduced and he could pay for the increase out of those savings. These helpful suggestions might make the programme slightly more attractive.
The country badly needs high quality training. There should be consensus in the House on that and it should not be seen just in terms of its effect on the register. We should see that it is well funded. The scheme is under-funded and to put into it an extra 200,000 people without at the same time putting in extra money causes problems for everybody. If the matters that I have mentioned were looked at and implemented, they might make the scheme more attractive. A firm statement that the scheme was voluntary would not cost the Secretary of State anything and would be very acceptable.
I should like the Secretary of State to respond to the question of the £50 allowance for the single parent. The allowance should not just be aimed at getting people off the unemployment register. It should be a good thing in itself, because it is a good idea to look at child care and to enable young women, as single parents mainly are, to cease being welfare recipients and to become taxpayers earning their own living in the labour market.

Mr. Fowler: The amendment is very narrow but it has led to a fairly wide debate. I shall try to respond to the points that hon. Members have made.
I entirely agree with the central point made by the hon. Member for Newham, North-East (Mr. Leighton) that we should seek to try to find as much agreement as we can between all the parties about training for the unemployed. That is entirely in line with everything that the Government have sought in employment training. Irrespective of that, it is a sensible aim for all parties in the House.
The proposals about employment training from the Manpower Services Commission were unanimous. The hon. Gentleman will know from his expertise in this area that the Manpower Services Commission is made up of nine commissioners. Three are from the Trades Union Congress, three from the Confederation of British Industry and three from education and local authorities. The commission submitted to me an entirely unanimous set of proposals covering about 50 pages and I accepted those proposals in full and did not try to double-guess them.

Ms. Short: rose—

Mr. Fowler: Perhaps the hon. Lady would allow me to continue. I shall give way to her in a moment.
As I say, I accepted those proposals in full and for that reason it is fair to ask that other hon. Members should consider their position in this important debate on employment training. It is not a matter upon which we should have the kind of divisions that, regrettably, have appeared over the last few months. I hope that we can put that behind us.
The whole purpose of training is to help the long-term unemployed. Whatever may be said by the hon. Member for Fife, Central (Mr. McLeish), and whatever may be our differences in respect of unemployment figures, the number of long-term unemployed has fallen. I announced today a record fall in the past 12 months. Even more important is the fact that there are many more jobs available in the economy than there have been for many years, with more than 700,000 vacancies around the country.

Ms. Short: rose —

Mr. Fowler: If I may continue, I shall give way to the hon. Lady later.
My ambition is to give the long-term unemployed training that will provide them with the skills necessary to fill the vacancies which are increasingly available. It is my purpose to reach as much agreement as possible, though I must say that I do not respect what has been done by the hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Ms. Short) in respect of the training programme.
In my meetings with the TUC, the Scottish TUC, the National Council for Voluntary Organisations, the Association of Metropolitan Authorities and local authorities, I have underlined my belief that we should take full advantage of the training opportunities which exist.

Ms. Short: I am sure that the Secretary of State for Employment would not wish to mislead the House, but he described the new scheme as reflecting the unanimous proposals of the Manpower Services Commission. Does he not concede that he told the commission how much money

was available to it, that the scheme would have to be a benefit-plus system, and how many people were to be covered by the scheme? No one on the committee concerned would have come up with such a scheme had the Minister not imposed those constraints upon it.
The Minister claims that he seeks a consensus on training, but he recently threatened the TUC. He knows that many unions do not believe that the scheme is good for the long-term unemployed. There is some question whether the TUC's general council will support it. If it does not support the scheme, the Minister has warned that he will close down the Manpower Services Commission. Is that a search for a consensus on training? I think not. It is in no way accurate for the Minister to pretend that such is the position he occupies.

Mr. Fowler: The hon. Lady is attempting to draw the House into a much wider debate, but I shall try to respond to her comments. The situation is exactly as I stated. The Manpower Services Commission made a unanimous report to me. The tripartite organisation of the commission is all about hammering out proposals which can be put to the Government. I emphasise again that I accepted the commission's proposals in their entirety.
The hon. Lady has a very heavy burden of guilt to bear. She will have to shoulder the burden of guilt if the scheme does not work out, although I do not want to debate that point with her today.
I could not have done more to demonstrate my willingness to seek the consensus which has been urged upon me than by accepting all the proposals which were put to me. Beyond that, and as a result of the visits to me by the TUC and other authorities, further proposals have been made which I hope will also prove attractive to those organisations. They were set out in my letter to Mr. Norman Willis, general secretary of the TUC. I have made a copy of that letter available to the hon. Lady and one has also been placed in the Library.
9.15 pm
As I have said, the Government believe that explicit mention in the Bill of disabled people has some value and will continue to do so. Even more important—I entirely agree with what has been said by the hon. Member for Fife, Central (Mr. McLeish)—in a Bill, that is a declaratory statement of what we want to do. We want to develop training provision for disabled people to the maximum possible extent, and, given the time that I spent in the DHSS, I hope that no one needs to convince me of the needs that exist and the concern that we should feel.
The normal entry rules will be relaxed so that any disabled person will be able to benefit from employment training. There will be special financial assistance for training disabled people, just as there is in the YTS, which will help towards the costs of, for instance, adapting premises and special equipment. We are also allowing supplementary grants for sponsors, which will be available to cover the higher costs in general of training groups such as the disabled.
I guarantee the hon. Gentleman that we shall do everything in our power to help further. Any programme has to evolve, but I hope that we are showing our commitment to the future.
I am of course aware of the report by the Public Accounts Committee on employment assistance for disabled adults. We have put in hand a review within the


Department of the policies and programmes that we support for disabled people in employment, which will take full account of the conclusions reached by the PAC and which will be completed as quickly as possible during the current year. I also note the welcome given in paragraph 35 of the report to the
considerable measures that the Department of Employment and the MSC have already put in hand in the six months following the publication of the National Audit Office report.
We shall certainly try to take that as far as we can.
There is nothing between us on the subject of ethnic minorities. Although it is not included in the Bill as such, we want and expect the maximum provision for them. Section 37 of the Race Relations Act 1976, for instance, allows training providers to take positive action on behalf of ethnic-minority groups, and I hope that the references that we have made to that will be taken into account. We have already announced that we will seek to allow the Training Commission to make full use not only of section 37 but of any other means open to us.
One of the criteria for achieving approved training organisation status will be the active pursuit of equal opportunities. In seeking to reach the highest possible standard in training, we have now reached a point at which people must have approval. The programme for approved training organisation status, which, for example, the YTS has at present, will also apply to employment training. I repeat that one of the criteria for achieving such status will be the active pursuit of equal opportunities. Again, if there is anything further that the Government can do in that respect, I should be happy to consider it.
I underline that I have accepted the commission's view that the scheme should be voluntary. I do not intend to designate it as an approved training. My aim and intent is that trainees should be attracted to the programme by its quality and relevance. If people have doubts about that—although I cannot see why they should have such doubts—I hope that they will realise that if they are members of the Manpower Services Commission involved in employment training, they can ensure that the voluntary nature remains part of the programme, as I intend.

Ms. Short: The Minister knows that the voluntary nature of the scheme is very important. He has said that he has no plans and that it is not his intent. Will he say now that he will not designate the scheme under clause 26 in the lifetime of this Parliament? If he says it, we shall know that he means it.

Mr. Fowler: We have had this debate time and again. I do not think that it is sensible to set down artificial time limits, because that implies that after a certain time we shall be into the approved argument and the whole scheme will become compulsory. That is neither my intent nor is it my approach. The aim of the scheme is to attract people to it. It is a voluntary scheme. Members of the Manpower Services Commission have not just the right but the absolute power to check that that is the case.

Mr. Riddick: Will my right hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Fowler: No. I should like to get on.
Payment to trainees is an important point, and I hope that I can help the hon. Gentleman. Trainees will receive a training allowance. Obviously that training allowance

will be adjusted to their circumstances through their entitlement to benefit. In other words, we are aiming to ensure a position in which no one is worse off when taking part in the training programme than they would be on benefit.
That is not so important for young people. It means that for the first time we can bring into the programme families with children who have greater entitlement. That is recognised by a whole range of organisations. The training allowance will provide a lead of £10 to £12 a week more than benefit entitlement. It will also provide travel expenses over £5 a week and lodging costs for training away from home. It will provide assistance to meet the cost of special clothing and tools and child-care costs of up to £50 a week per child for lone parents. I shall return to that as a separate issue. Trainees will not be liable to income tax or national insurance contributions and those on income support will be entitled to the passport benefits which go with social security. In any event, that is a substantial package which will ensure that everyone on the new programme will be better off than they would be if they were simply on benefit.
Additional payment can be made by training managers or employers without affecting the trainee's allowance. The hon. Member for Newham, North-East (Mr. Leighton) mentioned DHSS rules which allow voluntary payments of up to £5 a week. That certainly can be done.
In addition, items such as special clothing, travel costs and subsidised meals can be provided by training managers or employers if they so wish. The importance of that would be, for example, if a trainee manager or employer decided that the £5 of travel costs which are not covered needed to be covered, it would he entirely in their power to do that without it having any impact whatever on the trainee. Therefore, that can be covered, as can the cost of meals.
In addition, we shall provide a system of training bonuses which will be paid to trainees on the basis of their successful completion of the training programme and for obtaining vocational qualifications. The bonuses will range between £50 and £200. The MSC, with Government funds, will contribute on a pound for pound basis. We have come a long way to seek to satisfy some of the legitimate anxieties that people have about the programme. I hope that our movement will be recognised by those who make the decisions.
On the eligibility of special groups, the current level of provision will be maintained in the new programme—that is for disabled people, women returning to the labour force, people whose first language is not English and ex-offenders. Those groups will be able to enter the programme without meeting the normal eligibility requirements of six months' registered unemployment.
Single parents, like other people, will be eligible for the new programme if they have been registered as unemployed for at least six months, and the child care costs of all single parents on the new programme of up to £50 a week per child will be paid, again as recommended by the MSC. I have decided to go beyond the MSC proposals. There should also be additional arrangements whereby single parents, all of whose children are in full-time education and who have received income support on DHSS order books for at least six months, should also be eligible for the programme. All such single parents entering the programme will qualify for child-care allowances.
It is perfectly fair for the hon. Lady to say that that only goes part of the way. But we have now not only accepted the MSC proposals, but gone beyond them with our proposals on finance. On all these schemes and programmes, the start is not necessarily how they will end up for all time. However, the start that we have made on child-care allowances is innovative and, even given reservations, I hope that it will be welcomed as a substantial step towards what many people on both sides require.
I have strayed rather wide of the amendment, but these are important issues which I wanted to put before the House before important decisions are taken.

Question put and agreed to. [Special Entry.]

Lords amendment No. 33 agreed to.

Clause 33

SHORT TITLE, COMMENCEMENT AND EXTENT

Lords amendment: No. 34, in page 31, line 23, leave out "Part I of this Act" and insert
Sections 1 to 16 and 18 to 22 above

Mr. Nicholls: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
This amendment modifies the provisions for commencement set out in clause 33. It means that clause 17 will come into effect on Royal Assent rather than, as was originally provided, on a day appointed by the Secretary of State. Clause 17 has no substantive effect in itself. It enables the Secretary of State to issue and bring into force codes of practice for certain purposes after following the statutory requirements on consultation and parliamentary approval contained in section 3 of the Employment Act 1980. As with the provisions of part II of the Bill, which are also to be brought into effect on Royal Assent, it is an enabling provision. The amendment does not modify the need for the Secretary of State to satisfy the requirements of section 3 of the Employment Act 1980 in respect of consultation or parliamentary approval before the issue of any code under the clause. The amendment therefore avoids any necessity for delay in undertaking the required process of consultation with ACAS and the publication of a draft code, so that representations can be made. I therefore commend it to the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Lords amendments Nos. 35 to 38 agreed to.

Schedule 3

MINOR AND CONSEQUENTIAL AMENDMENTS

Lords amendment: No. 39, in page 38, line 38, leave out
In subsection (8) of section 5 of the Employment Act 1980
and insert
In section 2 of the Employment Act 1980 (secret ballots on employers' premises)—
(a) in subsection (1), at the end there shall be inserted the words 'unless the ballot is one in which every person who is entitled to vote must be given a convenient opportunity to vote by post.'; and
(b) in subsection (9), at the end there shall be inserted the words; and in this section "post" has the same meaning as in Part I of the Trade Union Act 1984.'

(2) In section 5 of that Act—
(a) in subsection (8)".

Mr. Nicholls: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Madam Deputy Speaker: With this we shall take Lords amendment No. 40.

Mr. Nicholls: The first amendment is a substantive one. It simply ensures that statutes are not inconsistent. Section 2 of the 1980 Act provides that where an independent trades union proposes to hold a relevant ballot and requests an employer to permit his premises to be used for the purposes of giving his workers who are members of the union a convenient opportunity to vote in the ballot, the employer shall, subject to certain conditions, comply with that request so far as is reasonably practicable.
Both union executive election ballots and political fund review ballots qualify as relevant. Employers can therefore be required to make their premises available for voting in such ballots. Clause 13 requires executive election and political fund ballots to be held only by the fully postal method. The substantive amendment accordingly removes a source of potential conflict between the 1980 Act and the Bill by removing any entitlement to use an employer's premises where ballots have to be held by the fully postal method.
The other amendment is entirely consequential and reorders paragraph 3 of schedule 3 so as to make room for the amendment. I commend it to the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Lords amendments Nos. 40 and 41 agreed to.

Lords amendment: No. 42., in page 39, line 25, leave out
section 2(5) of that Act
and insert
section 2 of that Act—
(a) in subsection (5)".

Mr. Cope: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Madam Deputy Speaker: With this we shall take Lords amendment No. 43.

Mr. Cope: These amendments are about balloting for union officers and other similar matters when some of the union members are overseas. The unions will be free to choose whether to ballot overseas members, as they do at present. The trade union Act 1944 and the Bill do not provide, however, for safeguards in voting to apply to overseas votes.
When we were dealing with workplace ballots, that was all very well. Now we need to provide for postal ballots. The amendments ensure that where a union enfranchises its overseas members they must use a voting paper and vote by post, and be able to do so without interference and without cost where that is practicable. Of course, they must be able to have their votes counted fairly and accurately.
The clauses concerning independent scrutiny and election addresses which we discussed earlier will apply automatically where overseas members are enfranchised. The amendments do not detract from the union's freedom of choice but simply ensure that, where overseas members can vote, they are treated in the same way as their counterparts in Great Britain. I commend the amendments to the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Lords amendments Nos. 43 to 48 agreed to.

Lords amendment: No.49, in page 40,line 11, leave out "and".

Mr. Cope: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Speaker: With this it will be convenient to consider Lords amendment No. 52.

Mr. Cope: For reasons at which I can only guess, these amendments were thought by some Opposition Members in the other place to be sinister. In fact, they are boringly technical and simply clarify the original intention of the Government.
The amendments concern the effect of the provisions about national union elections on those who are shortly to retire. The basic principle is that those who hold office as a result of a postal ballot or of a statutory election under the Trade Union Act 1984 can do so without a new election if they are due to retire within five years. Another part of the Bill provides that those who hold office at the time of the commencement of the provisions can continue without a new ballot for two years.
Obviously the decisions about the length and application of the time limits are a matter of judgment, but I do not think that they are unreasonable. However, they were, and to some degree still are, expressed in the Bill by means of amendments to schedule 8 to the 1984 Act. The question hinges on when sections 2 and 3 of that Act apply. The Bill, as it was originally drafted, was undoubtedly difficult to follow and the amendments help to clarify the position. I commend them to the House.

Mr. Strang: I cannot accept the casual explanation that the Minister has given for the Lords amendments, particularly Lords amendment No. 52. It makes an important change to the provisions requiring certain trade union officials to stand for election and it is our submission that the amendment has been tabled to require particular trade union leaders to stand for election. I shall seek to expand on that. However, in the 17 years or so during which I have had the privilege to be a Member of the House I have never come across a more petty and vindictive approach to such matters.
Let us go back to the beginning. Our view—we have made it clear consistently throughout the deliberations on the Bill, starting from Second Reading—is that the question of which officers of a trade union, whether the principal executive committee—which is usually elected anyway—the general secretary, the president or whoever, should be elected by a ballot of all members is one that should be for the union members to decide.
The rules of our unions have evolved over many years and they are based on what the members of the various unions believe is the best approach for their circumstances. I defend again the right of any union to appoint a general secretary, to regard a general secretary as primarily a senior administrator and to want a relationship with a general secretary that makes it clear that the authority on the executive lies with the elected lay members of the executive and that the general secretary is there to carry out its decisions. Many unions take the view—I am not saying that one approach is better than another—that that clarity of decision-making and that clarity in the

relationship between the senior official and the union is best served by having an appointed general secretary who is answerable to the elected lay members of the executive.
To a certain extent, that was done away with by the 1984 Act when the Government required that all voting members of executives should be directly elected. If the Government were determined to intervene—wholly unreasonably—in these matters and were determined to draw a distinction, that would be the best distinction to make. It is obvious to all trade unions that if members are to have a vote on the executive under the 1984 Act, they have to be elected, and if they do not have a vote they do not have to be elected.
We have only to read the Green Paper, which was the precursor to this Bill, to know that in the Government's view the decision of one trade union, the National Union of Mineworkers, to alter its rules to enable the president to give up his vote on the executive and thus avoid election meant that there was some loophole in the provisions. We do not accept that. The NUM was simply coming into line with the laws that the Government had introduced and in no way should that have been seen as the union somehow cocking a snook at the Government.
In response to that, quite unreasonably, the Government brought forward the provisions in this Bill that would require that the president of the NUM and many other unions, and the general secretaries, would have to be elected, regardless of whether they had a vote on the executive. That was a quite monstrous intrusion, we believe, in the affairs of the union, and was wholly unjustified. However, the Government having virtually admitted that this provision had been brought forward as a consequence of the decision of the NUM to create a situation in which the general secretary and the president did not have votes on the executive, we duly deliberated on these matters in Committee and on Report.
The president of the National Union of Mineworkers stood for election during that period. I would say in passing that this was in difficult circumstances, in the aftermath of a very damaging strike for the union. Certainly as portrayed by the mass media in this country, he was seen as something of a villain and, in the course of that campaign, was expected to be the repository of all the blame for what went wrong during the strike. Nevertheless, he won that election decisively.
It seems quite obvious now that the Government saw that the president of the NUM, having been elected in that way under the legislation as it was then drafted, might not he required to stand for election again. I should be grateful if the hon. Gentleman would clarify this because many people have suggested that part of the motivation for the Lords amendment was to ensure that the president of the NUM was required to stand again. The hon. Gentleman shakes his head, and I acknowledge that I do not think that that was the sole purpose of the Lords amendment. What makes it so distasteful, in our view, is that it seems as though the Government looked at the ages of certain general secretaries in the trade union movement and, on the basis of what they saw, decided to amend the retirement provisions. The evidence for that comes from the House of Lords proceedings. I make no apology for referring to this because it is this that leads us to argue that in some sense the Bill is hybrid.
When Lord Wedderburn asked the Minister, Lord Trefgarne:
We may assume that this class"—


that is, of trade union leaders—
has been ascertained by reference to the ages of particular people"—
a perfectly straightforward question as to whether they had looked at the ages of these general secretaries and decided that they would enact a particular amendment to ensure that they had to be re-elected before their retirement—Lord Trefgarne said:
As I understand it, yes.
Lord Murray, the former general secretary of the TUC, then asked the Minister if he would be so good as to publish the list of the people considered and their ages and say how he had taken the decision whether he wanted some to be elected and not necessarily others. And the Minister said:
Perhaps I can reflect upon that request. Off the cuff, I cannot think of any reason why we should not."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 8 March 1988; Vol. 494, c. 613.]
Subsequently, the Minister, I presume after having been advised by his civil servants that that was not a point that one should make public in the House of Lords, sought to retract it.
The Minister will be aware that there are different categories of trade union leaders. Some are elected by postal or workplace ballots. Much depends on whether one is a voting or non-voting member of the executive, on one's age, when one is due to retire and when the provisions are to come into force. It is perfectly clear that instead of trying to be consistent and requiring a group of people to be accountable to their membership, the Government approached the matter in a selective way. As I said earlier, that demeans the parliamentary process.
If a Labour Government introduced legislation affecting the heads of major companies, I could imagine the furore that there would be if the legislation required certain heads of companies, whose views we did not like, to be subject to certain requirements but not others. I hope that no Government would do that because we should not go down that road, but it shows the sort of comparable action that a Labour Government could take.
This is an outrageous intrusion into the affairs of trade unions. We want trade unionists to respect their rule books, which have been evolved by generations of trade unionists. Passing these laws will devalue those rules, and that is something of which the Government should be ashamed.

Mr. Winnick: I said earlier that some unions—mainly white-collar unions such as mine—have always appointed their general secretary. The lay executive is the governing body in the absence of annual conference. Every four or five years, my union had a rules revision conference so that any branch could put forward suggestions about changes. It was ironic that on any number of occasions it was, for want of a better phrase, the revolutionary Left that went to the rostrum and said that the general secretary should be elected and not appointed. It was left to me, a humble, modest Left-winger in the mainstream of the trade union movement, to argue that to elect a general secretary would give that person far greater authority than otherwise, and that it would be at the expense of the lay executive. I am glad to say that, without too many difficulties, I was able to persuade conference that the office of general secretary should remain an appointed position.
The Right-wing Tory Government, with typical impertinence, are telling the trade union movement how to

go about its business. The election of a general secretary has always been part of some unions' rules. White-collar unions such as mine and the Association of Scientific, Technical and Managerial Staffs, as it was formerly, have taken a different course. Surely it should be left to trade unionists and the rules revision body to decide whether they want to elect the general secretary or whether he should be appointed.
It is not only the general secretary but any official of a union who regularly attends meetings of the executive council who will be subject to election. There will be much legal ambiguity, to say the least, about who comes within the Act. There will be a few court test cases to decide whether an official should be elected, according to the provisions of the Act, because he may attend the executive council at regular intervals. What a stupid road the Tory Government have gone down.
Now, as my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Strang) has pointed out, this latest amendment seeks to ensure that one or two people whom tile Government clearly do not like, such as the president of the NUM, will no longer be exempted for reasons of age, and so on—not that he is frightened of elections because, as my hon. Friend has pointed out, he stood again recently and was elected.
If we had a Government who believed in their own internal democracy, we could at least say that they practised what they preached, however much we were against what they were doing. But here is a political party that, until 23 years ago, could not even elect its own leader. It was subject to the magic circle. The late lain Macleod wrote an informative and lengthy article on how the then Mr. Alec Douglas-Home became the Prime Minister. He was not the subject of any election. Even now, the chairman of the Conservative party is not subject to election.
The Tory party conference is more or less run on the same pattern as party congresses in eastern Europe. Here is a political party that does not practise democracy in its own ranks, that has no concern about democracy in the City or in big business—no legislation has come before us to bring any form of elementary democracy into big business or the City—but that has the impertinence to use its majority in the House to pass legislation such as this. This is a vendetta there is no other description for it—against the trade union movement.
My hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, East pointed out how a Labour Government could reply in kind. I only wish that when the time comes they do so.

Mr. Skinner: I have said before in recent weeks that the Government are becoming arrogant and contemptuous of almost everybody in the land. Despite all the sermons that the Prime Minister preaches, we are now seeing that they are prepared to bend the rules and shift the goalposts. They are prepared to do any mortal thing to attack working class people and their representatives or anybody who stands in their way. I can just imagine someone in the Tory party asking, "What is McCluskie's age? Next time we introduce a Bill we shall have to tackle him."
It crosses my mind, Mr. Speaker, that it is just conceivable—I choose my words carefully—that there might be some mole burrowing away saying, "This Speaker has not been exactly kind to us. I wonder whether we can devise a new rule. I wonder whether we can sort him out." Such is the nature of the Tory Government that


they will go to any lengths to carry out what my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) described as nothing short of a vendetta.

Mr. Martin M. Brandon-Bravo: Disgraceful.

Mr. Speaker: Order. This has nothing to do with the Bill.

Mr. Skinner: I am not one to defend anybody in the Establishment, but when I smell a rat over matters such as this it is worth exposing. I am pleased, Mr. Speaker, that you were able to refer in your programme to the cavalry—

Mr. Speaker: Order. We are debating the Employment Bill and I am not subject to that.

Mr. Skinner: I finish on that point, Mr. Speaker. I was trying to draw an analogy between the way in which the Government's collective mind works and anybody who might appear to stand in their way. The Government devise rules to shift them, with the exception of their own people, of course.
In a few days' time, the Government will not deal out the same treatment to the ex-leader of the Social and Democratic party—the leader of the provos. He will not have rules that will allow him to be chained to the fence. They are bringing in some new rules for him—new rules that will be favourable. There are only three Members of Parliament now, but he will finish up with £53,000-worth of Short money. They are not unhappy about that. Neither are the Social and Liberal Democrats, who never stood in the election and yet will get £180,000.

Mr. Speaker: Order. We are debating the Lords amendment. That matter has nothing to do with it.

Mr. Skinner: People outside want to know how the Government are operating and just how far they will go to try to undermine the collective weight of the Labour party by feeding large sums of money to the rag, tag and bobtails who sometimes sit on the Conservative Benches below the Gangway. I shall be referring to that at greater length on another occasion when I oppose the handing out of the money.
We are witnessing the same vindictiveness as the Government showed when they decided to get rid of the GLC. They said, "What's happening over there across the river? They are causing us some trouble. They want to bring down fares for Londoners. We shall put a stop to that by abolishing the council." They have introduced the same sort of proposals—[HON. MEMBERS: "ILEA."] Yes, the same was true of ILEA. [HON. MEMBERS: "The BBC."] In their dealings with the BBC and all the rest of it the Government have shown arrogance and contempt. There is no end to what they will do to try to stop people—even democratically elected trade union leaders—standing up to them.
Conservative Members stand need talking about elections and democracy—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Littleborough and Saddleworth (Mr. Dickens) who has just spoken from outside the Chamber—the putative Prime Minister—stands need talking about democracy. My hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, North talked about the chairman of the Tory party being

appointed by the Prime Minister of the day. The chairman of the Bank of England gets the job because he happens to be "one of us". Every quango chief, including William Rees-Mogg, gets the job because he passes the test. In between writing and preaching sermons, the Prime Minister asks the question, "Is he or she one of us?"—and it is usually a he. If the answer is yes, she says, "He's all right then. Give him the job." But when a trade union leader stands for election, the Government say, "How can we stop him holding that position?" It really stinks in the nostrils that the Tory Government can sink so low and be so contemptible as to twist the rules and shift the goalposts to try to hamper working class people and their representatives.
I am pleased that Opposition Members are going to march through the Lobbies tonight to vote against this obnoxious measure which started in another place. What a joke that it should have come from the place where 1,100 people can turn up for work on £100 a day tax free while not one of them has stood for election to get into the building. Now they are bending the rules to try to stop people being properly elected. My hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Strang) is absolutely right. He hit the nail on the head. They burned all that midnight oil looking for ways and means to let us down. We must make sure that when we get back to power we undo all this nonsense.

Mr. Nicholls: Perhaps I may start by returning to Lords amendments Nos. 49 and 52.
I may be able to set the mind of the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Strang) at rest to some extent. It would be nice if I could do that, bearing in mind the fact that this will probably be our last substantive debate on the Bill. It helps to approach the matter on the basis of those who are presently in scope for the retirement exemptions and those who we want to bring into scope. At the moment voting members of PECs are in scope. If they are there by virtue of a workplace ballot properly conducted under the 1984 Act, they could benefit by the retirement exemption if the provision comes into force within five years of their retiring. That is one category of people, and nothing in the Bill changes that.
The second category contains those who we would bring into scope. I accept that the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East profoundly disagrees with my reasons for bringing them in. However, the people who we wish to bring into scope are non-voting members of the PEC. If they are to benefit by the retirement exemption, their previous election must have been conducted by postal ballot. Ultimately it is inconsistent to say, "They should be entitled to benefit by a workplace ballot, just as voting members did."
The distinction—it is an absolutely vital distinction—is that those voting members who were returned under a workplace ballot did so in accordance with the Act. Even that workplace ballot had to be properly conducted. In other words, they conducted themselves in accordance with the legislation. Those people who may have decided, even though the Act did not apply to them, that they would nevertheless hold a workplace ballot are literally outside the law. They are not, as it were, complying with the law, because the law does not apply to them in their situation. It would mean, for instance, that in an election which was conducted in that way—not satisfying a requirement of the Act because they were literally outside
it—no member would have a right of complaint to the certification officer if he considered that ballot defective. What it comes to is that, under the 1984 Act, where workplace ballots took place because they were required to take place—

It being Ten o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.

Ordered,
That, at this day's sitting, the Lords amendments to the Employment Bill may be proceeded with, though opposed, until any hour.—[Mr. Maclean.]

Lords amendments again considered.

Question again proposed, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Nicholls: It was not just any old workplace ballot that had to be conducted; it had to be conducted in accordance with the Act.
The hon. Member for Edinburgh, East said in effect that there is perhaps an element of retrospection here; here is a provision which is aimed directly at Arthur Scargill, the president of the National Union of Mineworkers. It is not, because at the moment in no way could Mr. Scargill qualify for the retirement exemption, either as a voting member or, for that matter, a non-voting member, unless he reduces his retirement age. As I understand it, when his present term of office expires, he will still be only 55 years of age. Therefore, the only way that Mr. Scargill could bring himself remotely near this provision is if he decided to reduce his retirement age to bring himself within it. I do not claim to have any understanding of Mr. Scargill's inner mind, but if the hon. Gentleman knows that it was Mr. Scargill's intention throughout to bring himself within the scope of this scheme, I take the hon. Gentleman's point. That would be an entirely different matter. However, as we stand here today, Mr. Scargill does not qualify for the retirement exemption.
It is remarkable that the hon. Gentleman should feel that we conceived this particular provision to get rid of Mr. Arthur Scargill. If I could pander to the hon. Gentleman's worst suspicions for a moment, why on earth would a Conservative Government want to get rid of Mr. Arthur Scargill? The idea is ludicrous. I dare say that some of my more flippant colleagues would think that it would make far more sense to have an Arthur Scargill preservation society. The idea that Conservative Members have some vested interest in removing Mr. Arthur Scargill from the political scene is a dubious one. It is sad—I say that with all the insincerity that I can muster—that tonight we see a once great political party going into a vote in favour of Mr. Arthur Scargill on a false premise. It will carry as much conviction as a load of turkeys voting for Christmas.
The opposition to these amendments is completely ill founded. Mr. Scargill does not come within them, unless he wants to bring himself within them by particularly devious means. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will at least acquit us in this matter. The idea that Conservative Members have some interest in removing Mr. Scargill from the scene is bizarre in the extreme.

Question put and agreed to.

Lords amendments No. 50 and 51 agreed to.

Lords amendment No. 52, in page 40, line 16, at end insert
;and
(d) after the said subsection (4) there shall be inserted the following subsection—

'(5) Where any person holds any such position as is mentioned in paragraph (a) of subsection (2) above by virtue of an election held at any time before the coming into force of section 13(2) of the Employment Act 1988 (requirement of postal ballot), section 3 of this Act (non-postal ballots) shall be disregarded in determining for the purposes of that paragraph whether any election is an election in relation to which section 2 of this Act has been satisfied, unless the position to which that person was elected in that election was, at the time of the election, either—
(a) a position as a voting member of the principal executive committee of a trade union; or
(b) a position by virtue of election to which the person elected would become such a voting member.—

Question put, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment:—

The House divided: Ayes 246, Noes 185.

Division No. 326]
[10.3 pm


AYES


Aitken, Jonathan
Coombs, Simon (Swindon)


Alexander, Richard
Cope, John


Allason, Rupert
Couchman, James


Amess, David
Cran, James


Amos, Alan
Currie, Mrs Edwina


Arbuthnot, James
Curry, David


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Davies, Q. (Stamf'd &amp; Spald'g)


Ashby, David
Davis, David (Boothferry)


Atkins, Robert
Day, Stephen


Atkinson, David
Dickens, Geoffrey


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)
Dicks, Terry


Baldry, Tony
Dorrell, Stephen


Batiste, Spencer
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Dover, Den


Bellingham, Henry
Dykes, Hugh


Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Emery, Sir Peter


Bevan, David Gilroy
Evennett, David


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Fallon, Michael


Biggs-Davison, Sir John
Farr, Sir John


Blackburn, Dr John G.
Favell, Tony


Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Fenner, Dame Peggy


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey


Boswell, Tim
Fookes, Miss Janet


Bottomley, Peter
Forman, Nigel


Bottomley, Mrs Virginia
Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)


Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)
Forth, Eric


Bowis, John
Fowler, Rt Hon Norman


Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard
Fox, Sir Marcus


Brandon-Bravo, Martin
Franks, Cecil


Brazier, Julian
Freeman, Roger


Bright, Graham
French, Douglas


Brown, Michael (Brigg &amp; Cl't's)
Fry, Peter


Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)
Gale, Roger


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Gardiner, George


Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon Alick
Garel-Jones, Tristan


Buck, Sir Antony
Goodhart, Sir Philip


Budgen, Nicholas
Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles


Burns, Simon
Gorman, Mrs Teresa


Butcher, John
Gow, Ian


Butler, Chris
Gower, Sir Raymond


Butterfill, John
Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Greenway, John (Ryedale)


Carlisle, John, (Luton N)
Gregory, Conal


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)


Carrington, Matthew
Grist, Ian


Carttiss, Michael
Ground, Patrick


Cash, William
Grylls, Michael


Chapman, Sydney
Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)


Chope, Christopher
Hanley, Jeremy


Churchill, Mr
Hannam, John


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Hargreaves, A. (B'ham H'tl Gr')


Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)
Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)


Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)
Harris, David


Colvin, Michael
Hawkins, Christopher


Conway, Derek
Hayes, Jerry


Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)
Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney






Hayward, Robert
Rhodes James, Robert


Heathcoat-Amory, David
Riddick, Graham


Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)
Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas


Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.
Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)


Hill, James
Roe, Mrs Marion


Hind, Kenneth
Rost, Peter


Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)
Rumbold, Mrs Angela


Holt, Richard
Ryder, Richard


Howard, Michael
Sackville, Hon Tom


Howarth, Alan (Strat'd-on-A)
Sayeed, Jonathan


Howarth, G. (Cannock &amp; B'wd)
Shaw, David (Dover)


Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)
Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)


Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)
Shelton, William (Streatham)


Howells, Geraint
Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)


Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Hughes, Simon (Southwark)
Shersby, Michael


Hunt, David (Wirral W)
Sims, Roger


Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)
Skeet, Sir Trevor


Irvine, Michael
Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)


Jack, Michael
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Jackson, Robert
Soames, Hon Nicholas


Janman, Tim
Speed, Keith


Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey
Speller, Tony


Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


Jones, Robert B (Herts W)
Squire, Robin


Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine
Stanley, Rt Hon John


Key, Robert
Steel, Rt Hon David


Kilfedder, James
Steen, Anthony


Kirkwood, Archy
Stern, Michael


Knight, Greg (Derby North)
Stevens, Lewis


Latham, Michael
Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)


Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark
Stokes, John


Lilley, Peter
Stradling Thomas, Sir John


Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)
Summerson, Hugo


Maclean, David
Tapsell, Sir Peter


McLoughlin, Patrick
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Major, Rt Hon John
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Mans, Keith
Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)


Maples, John
Temple-Morris, Peter


Maude, Hon Francis
Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)


Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick
Thorne, Neil


Mills, Iain
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Miscampbell, Norman
Twinn, Dr Ian


Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Morris, M (N'hampton S)
Waddington, Rt Hon David


Moss, Malcolm
Wakeham, Rt Hon John


Mudd, David
Walden, George


Neale, Gerrard
Walker, Bill (Tside North)


Nelson, Anthony
Wallace, James


Neubert, Michael
Ward, John


Nicholls, Patrick
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Nicholson, David (Taunton)
Watts, John


Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)
Wheeler, John


Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley
Whitney, Ray


Oppenheim, Phillip
Widdecombe, Ann


Page, Richard
Wiggin, Jerry


Paice, James
Wilshire, David


Patten, Chris (Bath)
Winterton, Mrs Ann


Pawsey, James
Winterton, Nicholas


Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth
Wolfson, Mark


Porter, David (Waveney)
Wood, Timothy


Portillo, Michael
Woodcock, Mike


Powell, William (Corby)
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Price, Sir David



Raison, Rt Hon Timothy
Tellers for the Ayes:


Rathbone, Tim
Mr. Tony Durant and


Redwood, John
 Mr. David Lightbown.




NOES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Battle, John


Adams, Allen (Paisley N)
Beckett, Margaret


Allen, Graham
Beith, A. J.


Anderson, Donald
Bell, Stuart


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Benn, Rt Hon Tony


Armstrong, Hilary
Bermingham, Gerald


Ashton, Joe
Bidwell, Sydney


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Blair, Tony


Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)
Blunkett, David


Barron, Kevin
Boateng, Paul





Bradley, Keith
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald


Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)
Lambie, David


Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)
Lamond, James


Brown, Ron (Edinburgh Leith)
Leighton, Ron


Buchan, Norman
Lestor, Joan (Eccles)


Buckley, George J.
Lewis, Terry


Caborn, Richard
Litherland, Robert


Callaghan, Jim
Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)


Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)
Lofthouse, Geoffrey


Campbell-Savours, D. N.
McAllion, John


Canavan, Dennis
McAvoy, Thomas


Clark, Dr David (S Shields)
McCartney, Ian


Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)
Macdonald, Calum A.


Clay, Bob
McFall, John


Clelland, David
McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)


Cohen, Harry
McLeish, Henry


Coleman, Donald
McNamara, Kevin


Cousins, Jim
McTaggart, Bob


Cox, Tom
McWilliam, John


Cryer, Bob
Madden, Max


Cummings, John
Marek, Dr John


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Marshall, David (Shettleston)


Dalyell, Tarn
Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)


Darling, Alistair
Martlew, Eric


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)
Maxton, John


Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)
Meale, Alan


Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H'l)
Michael, Alun


Dewar, Donald
Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)


Dixon, Don
Millan, Rt Hon Bruce


Doran, Frank
Moonie, Dr Lewis


Douglas, Dick
Morgan, Rhodri


Duffy, A. E. P.
Morley, Elliott


Dunnachie, Jimmy
Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)


Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth
Mowlam, Marjorie


Eadie, Alexander
Mullin, Chris


Eastham, Ken
Murphy, Paul


Evans, John (St Helens N)
Nellist, Dave


Field, Frank (Birkenhead)
Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon


Fields, Terry (L'pool B G'n)
O'Brien, William


Fisher, Mark
O'Neill, Martin


Flannery, Martin
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley


Flynn, Paul
Patchett, Terry


Foot, Rt Hon Michael
Pike, Peter L.


Foster, Derek
Prescott, John


Foulkes, George
Quin, Ms Joyce


Fraser, John
Radice, Giles


Galbraith, Sam
Redmond, Martin


Galloway, George
Reid, Dr John


Garrett, John (Norwich South)
Richardson, Jo


George, Bruce
Robertson, George


Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John
Robinson, Geoffrey


Godman, Dr Norman A.
Rogers, Allan


Golding, Mrs Llin
Rooker, Jeff


Gordon, Mildred
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)


Gould, Bryan
Rowlands, Ted


Graham, Thomas
Ruddock, Joan


Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)
Salmond, Alex


Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
Short, Clare


Grocott, Bruce
Skinner, Dennis


Hardy, Peter
Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)


Haynes, Frank
Smith, C. (Isl'ton &amp; F'bury)


Healey, Rt Hon Denis
Smith, Rt Hon J. (Monk'ds E)


Henderson, Doug
Snape, Peter


Hogg, N. (C'nauld &amp; Kilsyth)
Soley, Clive


Holland, Stuart
Spearing, Nigel


Home Robertson, John
Steinberg, Gerry


Hood, Jimmy
Stott, Roger


Howarth, George (Knowsley N)
Strang, Gavin


Hughes, John (Coventry NE)
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)


Hughes, Roy (Newport E)
Turner, Dennis


Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)
Wall, Pat


Illsley, Eric
Walley, Joan


Ingram, Adam
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


Janner, Greville
Wareing, Robert N.


John, Brynmor
Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)


Jones, Barry (Alyn &amp; Deeside)
Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)


Jones, Ieuan (Ynys Môn)
Wigley, Dafydd


Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)
Williams, Rt Hon Alan






Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)



Wilson, Brian
Tellers for the Noes:


Winnick, David
Mr. Frank Cook and


Worthington, Tony
 Mr. Ray Powell.


Young, David (Bolton SE)

Question accordingly agreed to.

Lords amendments Nos. 53 to 60 agreed to.

Lords admentment: No. 61, in page 42, line 27, at end insert

The Agricultural Training Board Act /982 (c. 9)

12A. In section 4(1) of the Agricultural Training Board Act 1982 (power of Board to take part in arrangements in pursuance of the 1973 Act), for the words "section 2(1) or (2), 3(4)" there shall be substituted the words "section 2, 3".

The Industrial Training Act 1982 (c. 10)

12B.—(1) In section 5(3)(e) of the Industrial Training Act 1982 (power of industrial training board to take part in arrangements in pursuance of the 1973 Act), for the words "22–23section 2(1) or (2), 3(4)" there shall be substituted the words "section 2, 3".

(2) In section 15(3) of that Act (directions in pursuance of directions under section 3( 1 )(b) of the 1973 Act), for the words "section 3(1)(b)" there shall be substituted the words "section 2 or 3".

Mr. Nicholls: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
The amendment is wholly technical. It alters references to the Employment and Training Act 1973, the Agricultural Training Board Act 1982 and the Industrial Training Act 1982 which would otherwise become inactive with the passage of clause 25 of the Bill. I commend it to the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Orders of the Day — Elderly People (Social Security System)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Kenneth Carlisle.]

Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: It is not pleasant to be frightened and alone. It is even less pleasant when one is old, frightened and alone. In my constituency many people are unfortunately in that situation. The last census informed us that my population was becoming elderly, that young people were being forced to go elsewhere to find jobs, and that some of the difficulties they would face would be associated with long life and failing health.
It is frightening to approach the situation that we are rapidly approaching in my constituency, with many elderly people being admitted to hospital and being told, "You now have a choice. You need fairly long-term care but it is clear that we cannot provide that within the hospital service." The old people are told, "We suggest that you go into the private sector and seek to find some way of supporting yourself in one of the very pleasant private nursing homes that have grown up since the Government gave very positive encouragement to many people to look on geriatric care as a suitable field for private expansion."
As a result of the pressure on the Health Service from an elderly and growing population requiring help, the NHS has almost become a system that decants units into suitable storage depots. That is not a suitable or acceptable way of looking at the provision of health care. I get letters almost every day from people who say:
It seems there is an almost, Impossible task facing me. Due to the health cuts I have to take a decision on which I have no option. [1. To nurse my very sick husband at home. He is paralysed in both legs and cannot talk or even do anything for himself, after a brain operation. He is doubly incontinent and needs turning 4 times each night. I am told I have the other choice of private care which is going to cost at least £185 per week and, possibly more, as time goes on leaving me with about £20 to live on after I have bought clothes, etc, for my husband—as the funding for this is to be made from his pension, DHSS and private pension.
That unfortunate woman is herself not very well. Her letter goes on to describe how both she and her husband served in the forces during the war and how they find it unacceptable that, at this point in their lives, this is the solution that they are asked to accept.
Another of my constituents is in her seventies and has a 38-year-old, severely mentally handicapped daughter whom she has to dress and care for. She has now been told that she must take her mother home to live with her, or alternatively place her in private care. Her mother, who is normally very spry, is blind in one eye and nearly blind in the other. She has a fractured hip but she was kept in hospital for only two days. She subsequently had to be re-admitted and was then sent to another hospital, where she was told that she must move to a private unit.
Is all that so cruel? The Department of Health and Social Security will say that it assesses every situation and does everything that it can to make the individual comfortable. However, the other side of the equation has been put to me by increasing numbers of those who, taken by the Government's attitude towards the expansion of geriatric care, have themselves set up homes for geriatrics.
They inform me that the DHSS has now fixed a cut-off point beyond which it will not pay for those in geriatric


care. One SRN told me of a man suffering from multiple sclerosis who had been in her care for four years. The fees she charged had now reached the level where neither he nor his family could find a way of meeting them, and the DHSS was not prepared to meet them either. The SRN running that home asked me, "What am I expected to do?" She was told that what was important was that she should decide for herself. When she asked if the suggestion was that she should put a man suffering from multiple sclerosis out on to the street, she was told, "If that is the only alternative, that is what you must do."
In another case, a general practitioner was so deeply incensed that he wrote to me after one of his patients died.
He said:
Whilst he was in hospital in a 'holiday relief' bed, [his] condition deteriorated, and at the end of the fortnight he was therefore unfit to be discharged. [His wife] is herself ill and in any case would not have been able to take him home to look after him. I think the family are relieved, in view of [his] mental state, at what has happened, and I would like to thank you for your efforts on his behalf.
But the chairman of the health authority had sent a letter saying:
I can only presume that [the doctor] has confirmed this is not a case where the patient, for acute reasons, should stay in hospital, but could be looked after at home.
In his letter, that general practitioner went on to explain in psychiatric terms why he did not share that view, and why he had made clear from the beginning of that patient's treatment the fact that he required constant hospital care, which he could not receive in a private home.
The reality of geriatric care in my constituency is straightforward. Over the past two years, 36 geriatric beds have been closed—18 in October 1986 and 18 in March 1988. There were 3,139 geriatric admissions in 1986–87 and 3,104 in 1987–88. The continuing pattern of care shows that over the past two years the average length of stay was 23·3 days in 1986–87 and 30·6 days in 1987–88.
There is now a demand that the local geriatricians and psychogeriatricians should themselves find a way of dealing with the question of organising geriatric care in my constituency. They are told that the easiest way of doing that is to create a trust. When they produced a plan that gave them at least some control over the standards of care in private homes, they were told by the chairman of the regional health authority, Sir Donald Wilson, "That is unfortunate—take it back. It does not rely sufficiently on the private sector."
Let me say one thing very simply to the Minister. If the Government persist in a policy that deliberately cuts down the numbers of geriatric and psychogeriatric beds in the National Health Service—if they deliberately seek to expand care in the private sector—they must face up to their responsibility in some other way. First, the Department can no longer say to people, "You must be cared for in private homes, but we shall limit the amount that we pay for your stay." They must know that that places on working-class and even middle-class families a burden that many find unacceptable, and with which many are unable to deal. There is no point in saying to someone who may himself be unemployed or low paid and in need of a sufficient boost in his income to achieve a decent standard of living that he must support his aged parent—or, in some cases, both aged parents—in private homes, at a cost that they know that he cannot meet.
Few people in my constituency can meet a cost of £200 a week if they are to undertake their proper responsibilities. Yet the Department is deliberately not accepting changed plans for geriatric care that would enable such people to be dealt with in the NHS, and at the same time is throwing out any attempt by the geriatricians to ensure that private homes attain a proper standard of care.
That is a plain, simple and entirely unacceptable policy. In effect, it says to many old people, not only in my constituency—unfortunately this is happening throughout the length and breadth of the United Kingdom—"We are sorry, but you have lived too long. Our form of Christianity says that if you can obtain charity, well done, but if you cannot the state will neither provide you with proper care in the NHS nor support you within the private system over a certain point." That is now happening every day.
If the Minister has come here tonight with a plain statement that my constituency is to have increased geriatric care, I can only welcome that statement with open arms. But if he has come to reel off a lot of statistics without pointing out that the day-to-day reality for my constituents is an entirely unacceptable decision with which they are unable to deal, I must tell him that, along with his colleagues in the Conservative party, he bears a heavy burden. They are effectively saying that a nation that can afford with no difficulty to hand back considerable sums to those who already have means intends to treat its old—particularly its sick old—in a way close to barbarism.
I find that a sad commentary on a democratic country. I find, above all, that my constituents now see the stark reality of Conservative health policy, which is: "To them that have shall be given; to them that have not, there will be no health care in any form."

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security (Mr. Michael Portillo): I congratulate the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) on obtaining this Adjournment debate, and on speaking at a fairly reasonable hour. I join her in saying that this subject is important. She has broadened her remarks to cover the welfare of the elderly, not merely the issues immediately brought to mind by the title of the debate.
However, there is a certain inconsistency in some of what she has said. She seemed to attack the encouragement that she said that the Government had given to the expansion of the private sector. At the same time she was attacking the limits paid under income support as being too low.
Since 1980, first through supplementary benefit and now through income support, it has been very much easier for fees for nursing homes and residential care homes to be met. Of course that has brought about an increase in the number of people in residential care homes or nursing homes who are claiming income support to cover their fees. There has been an enormous increase in the number of claimants who are not well-off, as the hon. Lady seemed to imply. By definition, they are poorly off. For those people a need that could not be met before has been met through supplementary benefit and income support. It has


given those people choice. They can choose the place where they go to live with the taxpayer picking up the burden. Perhaps the hon. Lady should bear that in mind.
First, I shall deal with some of the issues that are particular to the hon. Lady's constituency and to her health authority. I understand that the Crewe district authority has been considering discharging elderly patients from hospital into the community when they no longer require the level of medical and nursing care normally provided in hospitals. These proposals are still at an early stage. Crewe DHA has been examining a number of options. some of which would involve the NHS building nursing home facilities on NHS land. Thereafter the property would be leased to a private operator. Also under consideration are a number of other options involving use of private or company trusts or use of the voluntary sector. Those options are being examined within the context of national policy, and no decisions have been taken. Crewe DHA is due to meet next on 17 June when this matter will be given further consideration.

Mrs. Dunwoody: I should not like to accuse the Minister's Department of misleading him, because I am sure that that is what it has been told. The reality is that it was suggested that a private home should be built on an NHS site. That plan was set up in such a way that geriatricians would be able to control the level of care. That plan has been turned down by the regional health authority which said that there is not sufficient private involvement. If it meant by that that the geriatricians should have no say in the standards of care, it is better that the Minister understands that and makes it public.

Mr. Portillo: I heard the hon. Lady say that during her speech and I raised an eyebrow at the time. I shall tell her what I understand the situation to be.
The proposals made by the DHA are very complex and need to be considered with care. The recent Public Accounts Committee report on community care readily acknowledged that patients should not be tranferred into the community until appropriate services are in place. There are legal problems where health authorities have set up trusts or joint arrangements with voluntary bodies or housing associations to house patients discharged from long-stay hospitals. These problems arise from the fact that health authorities are not allowed to charge, and must provide the care free. Legal problems arise where there are intimate connections between health authorities and privately provided care and living facilities.
Last autumn we asked health authorities to hold back on proposals for any new schemes on those lines where they were at the planning stage while we gathered information on the extent of such schemes, clarified the legal position and considered the long-term expenditure implications of any switch in services from a cash-limited Health Service budget to a demand-led social security budget. We are now giving urgent consideration to the way forward. Obviously Sir Roy Griffiths' report will be an important consideration.
In my opening remarks I referred to the extent to which the provision of support has risen, first through supplementary benefit and now through income support. When people cannot afford fees in private or voluntary homes they can get help from income support, and the spending on that has increased considerably from £10 million in 1979 to well over £500 million today.
The hon. Lady is looking impatient because she said that she did not want to hear any statistics, but the statistics are about a very large number of people with almost no resources of their own who are now being helped by the taxpayer to live and to be cared for in residential care and nursing homes, and that is a very important factor.

Mrs. Dunwoody: Will the Minister please answer the point? In my constituency—he can come and visit it any time he likes—people are told that there are no NHS beds and that they must go into private care. But they cannot afford to pay the sum, even with income support or anything else with a fancy name for handing out charity. That is happening day after day, and talking about billions of pounds does not change that for anyone.

Mr. Portillo: That is not true. Talking about billions of pounds changes the position for many more than the 100,000 people who are receiving their care in that way. The situation has arisen under this Government because before 1980 these fees were not available on supplementary benefit. It is nonsense for the hon. Lady to talk as though the help was insignificant.
I am not arguing that the social security arrangements are perfect, but the hon. Lady will recognise that some sort of limit needs to exist. She seemed to accept that point when she said that she disapproved of the expansion of the private sector. Where income support pays the fees of people in private homes, whether residential care or nursing homes, she presumably wishes to see a decent standard of care, that the charges are reasonable and that the amounts that the DHSS is willing to pay are suitable to reasonable, average charges throughout the country, and so they are. We base the amounts that we allow on research into the costs and charges that various homes make.
We introduced those national limits in 1985 because we wanted a coherent approach. There are now national limits for a range of categories of residential care homes and, similarly, nursing homes. Many of these limits have risen sharply in recent years. For example, in residential care homes the limit for elderly people is £130 and for those who are very dependent £155. Those figures represent increases of 18 per cent. and 41 per cent. over the 1985 limits, well in excess of inflation over the period. Again, people are being provided for in that way.
We are always willing to listen to the views of hon. Members and the public on this, but we keep these limits under careful review. That has been demonstrated by the fact that several limits were raised again in April 1988. Health and local authorities have the power and duty to meet high care needs, and they are often best placed to judge these. The question that arises is whether people are suitably placed. Although the national limits are tailored to care categories, they cannot respond to the infinite variations of individual needs. That matter is discussed in the PAC report published last week.

Mrs. Dunwoody: Will the Minister please listen to what he is saying? Will he tell me why there are insufficient beds in the NHS, and why the Government have encouraged the expansion of private care and now refuse to pay for it? The Government must either provide care under the NHS where it belongs or justify how they treat people in the private sector. They cannot have it both ways.

Mr. Portillo: I would perhaps listen to myself more carefully if the hon. Lady was not making so much noise in my speech. She pointed to the plans of the Crewe DHA to discharge patients into new set-ups that it is planning. I have already addressed that issue in saying that it raises complex issues which need to be considered, and for the moment we have said that health authorities should sit on such plans until we have been able to resolve those issues.
At the same time there is this large expansion in the private and voluntary care sector, about which the hon. Lady seems to be confused. On the one hand she is denouncing it as a bad thing and on the other saying that the limits seem to be set too low. Those two attitudes cannot be consistent. We believe that people are on the whole appropriately placed under the present system, but that is something on which we do considerable research. Recent research that was done by the social policy research unit seemed to show that more than 90 per cent. of the people studied needed residential care at the time of admission to homes and two years later. A minority of those in the sample were admitted to homes directly from the community, and were found to have lesser needs at the outset, although there was no difference between them and the rest of the sample by the time of the survey. Those are not conclusive results, but again I believe that they show that the care packages that are available on the whole suit the needs of people.

Ms. Marjorie Mowlam: If the Minister is going to talk about the SPRU report and the Public Accounts Committee report on community care that was issued last week, would it not give a fuller picture if he also talked about the PAC report, which said that there is not enough community care, that 800,000 people have been let out into the community, and there are not the facilities to cater for them, as my hon. Friend says?

Mr. Portillo: The hon. Member for Redcar (Ms. Mowlam) will forgive me if I do not respond to the PAC report, because that would be improper, apart from anything else.

Mrs. Dunwoody: The Minister has been using it.

Mr. Portillo: No, I have mentioned the PAC report on two occasions and I have quoted from it, but I have certainly not attempted to respond to it.
The hon. Member for Redcar and her hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich cannot be in any doubt that the Government are serious about community care because we have devoted much time and effort to studying the subject. The hon. Ladies need to show a little more patience.
We have recently received the Griffiths report. These are complex issues. I do not think that the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich did justice to the complexity of the issues which concern the appropriate level of care for people in the community, the efficiency with which the taxpayer can deliver that care, and the question whether it is best provided to persons in the home, in the voluntary sector, in residential care, in a nursing home or in geriatric beds in the National Health Service.

Mrs. Dunwoody: That is the best way.

Mr. Portillo: The hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich has not referred to geriatric care in the National Health Service, but she will be perfectly clear about it. That option is in general the most expensive, not least because many of those who are cared for within the NHS are most dependent and require the greatest amount of care. That is a very important factor, but none the less it does not remove the great importance of ensuring that taxpayers' money, whether it is spent via the social security system, through social services or through the NHS, is spent efficiently so that we provide the appropriate level of care for people in whatever context.

Mrs. Dunwoody: With any luck, they will die!

Mr. Portillo: In short, I believe that the present arrangement for benefits for those in homes are a good deal better than they have been in the past, particularly given the reforms that were made in 1980. I am open to any suggestions for further improvement, and I am grateful to the hon. Lady for the characteristic way in which she has made a number of suggestions to us this evening.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at eighteen minutes to Eleven o'clock.